https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90569
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(I'm starting to think that __float128 support should have been disabled on
targets where it requires greater alignment than malloc guarantees, instead of
making GCC's max_align_t lie).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90569
Bug ID: 90569
Summary: __STDCPP_DEFAULT_NEW_ALIGNMENT__ is wrong for
i386-pc-solaris2.11
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88440
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #18 from Martin Liška ---
$ cat -n netcdf/netcdf_expanded.f90:
...
1470 print *,shape(values)
1471 print *,size(values)
1472 print *,is_contiguous(values)
1473
1474 nf90_put_var_1D_EightByteReal = &
1475
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #17 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #16)
> Hi Martin,
>
> Is this for the slowdown or for the wrong-code issue?
It's the wrong code for cam4_r benchmark.
>
> To get another view, from a gdb seesion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #16 from Thomas Koenig ---
Hi Martin,
Is this for the slowdown or for the wrong-code issue?
To get another view, from a gdb seesion of the compiler:
call debug(expr)
call debug(fsym)
a look at expr->symtree->n.sym (I think call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90309
--- Comment #5 from Philipp Lucas ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
> ...but first it'd be nice to find out *why* we're shifting by -4 and how
> that can be.
It's not shifting /by/ -4, the -4 is shifted by 1. The ARM ABI says in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
Resulting difference in original dump file is:
BEFORE:
D.20757 = _gfortran_internal_pack ();
__result_nf90_put_var_1d_eigh = nf_put_vara_double
((integer(kind=4) *) ncid,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
Ok, so I isolated that to a single file and one gfc_conv_subref_array_arg call.
Problematic file is netcdf/netcdf.f90 and the gfc_conv_subref_array_arg call
happens
for:
(gdb) p *expr
$3 = {
expr_type =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90568
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 22 May 2019, ffengqi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784
>
> --- Comment #7 from Qi Feng ---
> I add some patterns in match.pd which handles
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #13 from Thomas Koenig ---
I'm afraid the tree dumps will not help a lot - I know what they
look like before and after, but I don't know what is wrong with it.
I would therefore ask you to reduce the test case, maybe starting
with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90564
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed May 22 09:35:39 2019
New Revision: 271509
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271509=gcc=rev
Log:
Do not use quotes in tests (PR testsuite/90564).
2019-05-22 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784
--- Comment #7 from Qi Feng ---
I add some patterns in match.pd which handles the original 5 transformations.
But I don't the language used in match.pd well, the patterns I wrote are very
similar.
And I haven't found predicates for constant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90561
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88440
--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 22 May 2019, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88440
>
> Martin Liška changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88440
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90543
--- Comment #5 from Florian Bauer ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> So apparently it does not have an easy fix:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-05/msg01463.html
Ah I see. The problem is that (only windows?) defines long
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784
--- Comment #6 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
Created attachment 46397
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46397=edit
Some more patterns
Looking into this I found some more places where it seems to be non-optimal
code, maybe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678
--- Comment #36 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 46396
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46396=edit
poor mans solution^Whack
So this is what a hack looks like, basically sprinkling those asm()s throughout
the code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46394
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46394=edit
521.wrf_r valgrind report
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46395
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46395=edit
527.cam4_r valgrind report
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88440
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88440
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46393
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46393=edit
SPEC2006 and SPEC2017 report
The report presents difference between master (first gray column) and the
Richi's patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90564
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90564
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed May 22 08:25:07 2019
New Revision: 271508
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271508=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix wrong escaping of brackets (PR testsuite/90564).
2019-05-22 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784
--- Comment #5 from Qi Feng ---
(In reply to Qi Feng from comment #4)
> The fourth to the last should be:
>
> x < y || x != INT_MAX --> x != UINT_MAX
>
> sorry for the typo.
x < y || x != INT_MAX --> x != INT_MAX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784
--- Comment #4 from Qi Feng ---
The fourth to the last should be:
x < y || x != INT_MAX --> x != UINT_MAX
sorry for the typo.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88918
Bug 88918 depends on bug 56253, which changed state.
Bug 56253 Summary: fp-contract does not work with SSE and AVX FMAs (neither
FMA4 nor FMA3)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56253
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56253
Matthias Kretz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86288
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90543
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|patch |
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90561
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
There's a temporary created by the FE that is not in the BIND_EXPR vars list.
Or rather, it is in the wrong BIND or the assign is in the wrong place:
p ()
{
...
{
character(kind=1)[0:][1:.z] *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90561
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90543
--- Comment #3 from Florian Bauer ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> Patch has been sent:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-05/msg01460.html
Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90564
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90565
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678
--- Comment #35 from Richard Biener ---
The IFN_ way may be a possibility indeed. I believe a volunteer should first
tackle -ftrapv in this way then to see how painful an exercise this is.
Note that the issue with FENV access is not so much
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27221
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Wed May 22 07:51:59 2019
New Revision: 271505
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271505=gcc=rev
Log:
darwin, testsuite fix PR27221
The test can't succeed on 32b powerpc Darwin since the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90500
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90500
--- Comment #20 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed May 22 07:45:17 2019
New Revision: 271504
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271504=gcc=rev
Log:
Strip target_clones in copy attribute (PR lto/90500).
2019-05-22 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90450
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90543
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90450
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 22 07:44:24 2019
New Revision: 271503
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271503=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-05-22 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/90450
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85400
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.0 |8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85400
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed May 22 07:42:52 2019
New Revision: 271502
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271502=gcc=rev
Log:
c-family/
Backport from mainline
2018-05-10 Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #8)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> > So there's somebody who is having the file in a public git repository.
> > That's probably violating SPEC rules :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90315
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #3)
> (I was looking into local autotester regressions, finding this PR.
> Just a gentle reminder...)
>
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> > I've got
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784
--- Comment #3 from Qi Feng ---
I have extended the transformations as following, the first five are the
original ones:
* unsigned
Use UINT_MAX for demonstration, similar for UCHAR_MAX, USHRT_MAX, UINT_MAX,
ULONG_MAX, ULLONG_MAX
x > y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85400
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ---
(> Eric, can you please backport this patch to 8.4?
OK, testing the backport...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80645
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|m68k-*-*, ia64-*-*, |m68k-*-*, ia64-*-*,
101 - 151 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
