https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91275
--- Comment #9 from Lauri Kasanen ---
Can -mno-optimize-swaps be used per-function, in the code via some pragma?
Alternatively, does calling the instruction via inline asm prevent the
swapping?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91946
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
I mean comparisons which are not equals or not equals outside of array bounds
is undefined.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91946
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also this was an a broken ABI mistake a long time ago. Also comparing for non
equality outside an array bounds (besides one past the end) is also undefined
behavior. Undefined behavior does NOT need to be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91222
--- Comment #20 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Still seeing this today building cactuBSSN_r with -flto
Sorry for that - I had some unexpected developments after cauldron.
I am back from vacation now and will fix it ASAP.
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91275
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Lauri Kasanen from comment #7)
> Are you sure about the smaller ones? To me they should not care about 64-bit
> swaps,
"swappable" here means you can swap the low and high half on all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91222
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-07-22 00:00:00 |2019-10-1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91946
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Sorry i mean ptrdiff_t .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91946
--- Comment #2 from Tim Ruehsen ---
Is ssize_t C99 ?
Could you point to the specs so that any reader can verify that ?
And by UB you mean, gcc sometimes gives 0 and sometimes 1 ? Even if it's UB,
the behavior should be consistent.
Since this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91947
Bug ID: 91947
Summary: std::filesystem::file_size will return wrong value on
32bit platforms with large files support
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91946
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91940
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Untested WIP patch that does both.
If it finds vectorize_bswap will work (the corresponding permutation is
supported), it will just undo the promotion, if target supports vector rotates,
will use vector
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91452
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91946
Bug ID: 91946
Summary: wrong result comparing pointer with pointer+offset
with -m32
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91452
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Tue Oct 1 08:55:28 2019
New Revision: 276392
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276392=gcc=rev
Log:
[AArch64] Use calls for SVE TLSDESC
One (unintended) side effect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91854
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91269
--- Comment #20 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Oct 1 08:10:17 2019
New Revision: 276390
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276390=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/91854
Backport from mainline
2019-09-20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91854
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Oct 1 08:10:17 2019
New Revision: 276390
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276390=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/91854
Backport from mainline
2019-09-20 Eric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91945
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91937
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91940
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Another option is to elide the promotion?
int foo (unsigned short x)
{
return __builtin_bswap16 (x);
}
return (int) __builtin_bswap16 ((int) x);
but BUILT_IN_BSWAP16 is BT_FN_UINT16_UINT16, not sure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91941
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91935
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14167
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #8 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91275
--- Comment #7 from Lauri Kasanen ---
Thanks for working on this. Per my experience, this is fast for gcc ;)
Are you sure about the smaller ones? To me they should not care about 64-bit
swaps, but clang lists them all as lane-sensitive:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86964
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
--- Comment #21 from Richard
101 - 125 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
