https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108552
--- Comment #45 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Linus Torvalds from comment #43)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #42)
> >
> > I think if we want to avoid doing optimizations on gcov counters we should
> > make them volatile.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108594
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93106
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dev at gutoehrlein dot eu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108552
--- Comment #43 from Linus Torvalds ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #42)
>
> I think if we want to avoid doing optimizations on gcov counters we should
> make them volatile.
Honestly, that sounds like the cleanest and safest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108574
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108552
--- Comment #44 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I guess we should try and see.
For volatile,
--- gcc/coverage.cc 2023-01-02 09:32:37.078072992 +0100
+++ gcc/coverage.cc 2023-01-30 09:24:45.219951352 +0100
@@ -774,6 +774,7 @@ build_var (tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108583
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108582
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108574
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108511
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108511
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4c17371dc5a1193671e5a475349fa7d7a6f0ca1c
commit r13-5489-g4c17371dc5a1193671e5a475349fa7d7a6f0ca1c
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108552
--- Comment #46 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 30 Jan 2023, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108552
>
> --- Comment #44 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> I guess we should try and see.
> For
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108584
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108574
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 108584 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108558
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:591ec4820aa4e6d757ddc76cae1d92d445daf72c
commit r12-9090-g591ec4820aa4e6d757ddc76cae1d92d445daf72c
Author: Tobias Burnus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108558
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108574
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7ac3e69e311351b70407d7f87a0169c4d463e57b
commit r13-5492-g7ac3e69e311351b70407d7f87a0169c4d463e57b
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108594
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |INVALID
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108596
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-01-30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108599
--- Comment #1 from Henning Baldersheim ---
This is spun out from https://github.com/vespa-engine/vespa/pull/25786
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108599
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The bug is in ix86_convert_const_wide_int_to_broadcast. It is called with
OImode and
(const_wide_int 0x100010), that CONST_WIDE_INT is actually usable
as broadcast from DImode 0x10, but only to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108599
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.3
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108597
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108589
ptomsich at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ptomsich at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108596
Bug ID: 108596
Summary: error: EDGE_CROSSING missing across section boundary
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108597
--- Comment #1 from Serdar Sanli ---
stacktrace from my gcc 12.2.0:
0xe2534f crash_signal
/root/source/gcc-12.2.0/gcc/toplev.cc:322
0xb0f049 location_wrapper_p(tree_node const*)
/root/source/gcc-12.2.0/gcc/tree.h:4160
0xb0f049
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108596
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.5
Summary|error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108600
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #1)
> Created attachment 54371 [details]
We probably don't want to emit in all cases, maybe limiting to
"dwarf_version >= 3", or "!dwarf_strict || dwarf_version >=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108595
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
It is related to sibcalls and aarch64 with x1 has the same issue.
I am suspecting this is just an invalid option to use here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108582
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:876b3e0514bc8cb2256c44db56255403bedfa52d
commit r13-5493-g876b3e0514bc8cb2256c44db56255403bedfa52d
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108582
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.1.0, 13.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108599
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
cse2 still has correct:
(insn 28 27 29 2 (set (reg:V4DI 86)
(mem/u/c:V4DI (symbol_ref/u:DI ("*.LC2") [flags 0x2]) [0 S32 A256]))
"pr108599.C":6:49 1811 {movv4di_internal}
(expr_list:REG_EQUAL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108599
--- Comment #2 from Henning Baldersheim ---
This is an even bigger issue with gcc 13. Then it only requires -march=haswell
Works:
c++ -Wall -Wextra -O3 -march=ivybridge test.cpp && ./a.out
Fails:
c++ -Wall -Wextra -O3 -march=haswell test.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47471
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #24
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108594
m.cencora at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m.cencora at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108595
--- Comment #3 from Idan Horowitz ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> I am suspecting this is just an invalid option to use here.
a1 is indeed used for argument passing, it's used to pass the second argument.
I don't think the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108597
Bug ID: 108597
Summary: internal compiler error with -Wduplicated-cond
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108596
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Likely latent before that though.
Slightly cleaned up testcase, just -O2 is needed:
__attribute__((__cold__)) void foo (void);
void qux (void);
int
bar (void)
{
asm goto ("" : : : : l1, l0);
l1:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108598
Bug ID: 108598
Summary: GCC analyzer reports false positive for buffer
overflow/over-read in C code with a write in middle of
an array.
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108599
Bug ID: 108599
Summary: Incorrect code generation newer intel architectures
for gcc 12 and 13
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108600
Bug ID: 108600
Summary: Use DW_LNS_set_prologue_end
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108600
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 54371
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54371=edit
tentative patch
Tentative patch.
For hello.c, for the -gas-loc-support case it gives us:
...
$ gcc -g ~/hello.c -S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108599
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108583
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108102
--- Comment #12 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus ---
The culprit seems to be that s390_sched_init is not called in one particular
case. We have the following basic blocks and edges:
6 --> 12 --> 13 --> 14
The edges from 12 to 13 and 13 to 14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108595
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
a1 is also used for argument passing so is this option to use here?
What happens at -O1 ? Is it only related to sibcalls?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108597
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.1.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108583
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 30 Jan 2023, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108583
>
> Tamar Christina changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108599
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-* i?86-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108602
Bug ID: 108602
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/modules/xtreme-header-5_c.C -std=c++2b
(test for excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108583
--- Comment #7 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #6)
> (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #3)
> > The vectorizer has this context but since we didn't want a new IFN the
> > context should instead be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106746
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #25)
> Now, I believe the fix was incorrect and the other PR has all the details on
> it.
S/Now/No/, ouch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108221
--- Comment #21 from Jan Dubiec ---
Unfortunately, after recent changes compilation for H8 family ends with:
Making all in c++20
make[5]: Entering directory
'/d/Works/xcomp/gcc-build/h8300-elf/libstdc++-v3/src/c++20'
echo 'static const char
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103979
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108463
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 54374
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54374=edit
gcc13-pr108463-1.patch
Additional untested patch (likely stage1 material) to avoid considering
SP_DERIVED_VALUE_P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106746
--- Comment #24 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So this PR can be marked resolved now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108601
Bug ID: 108601
Summary: [13 Regression] vector peeling ICEs with PGO + LTO +
IPA inlining in gcc_r in SPEC2017
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108601
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108463
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 54375
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54375=edit
gcc13-pr108463-2.patch
Additional untested patch (likely stage1 material) to treat SP_DERIVED_VALUE_P
and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108599
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108596
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108595
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60008
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||idan.horowitz at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105593
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to James Addison from comment #16)
> Does it make sense to update some of the other variable declarations (like
> this[1] one) within optimized blocks to use self-initialization as part of
> this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106746
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek ---
See PR108463 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-January/610778.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106746
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Now, I believe the fix was incorrect and the other PR has all the details on
it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108583
--- Comment #5 from Tamar Christina ---
> > The vectorizer has this context but since we didn't want a new IFN the
> > context should instead be derivable in
> > targetm.vectorize.can_special_div_by_const hook.
>
> The vectorizer doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108583
--- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #3)
> The vectorizer has this context but since we didn't want a new IFN the
> context should instead be derivable in
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108484
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
Target: aarch64-none-elf
Configured with: /home/alecop01/toolchain/src/gcc/configure
--prefix=/data_sdb/toolchain/cc1s/aarch64 --enable-langauges=c,c++
--disable-bootstrap --target=aarch64-none-elf
Thread model: single
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 13.0.1 20230130
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107409
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108579
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108604
Bug ID: 108604
Summary: New test case gcc.dg/torture/pr108574-3.c in
r13-5492-g7ac3e69e311351 hangs
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108221
--- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Use --without-libstdcxx-zoneinfo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108607
Bug ID: 108607
Summary: [12/13 Regression] ICE in
potential_constant_expression_1, at
cp/constexpr.cc:10003
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108606
Bug ID: 108606
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in
potential_constant_expression_1, at
cp/constexpr.cc:9713
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108605
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Slightly modified testcase so it comes with both C and C++ front-ends:
```
struct S {
char a;
char b;
char c;
int d[0x7fffu];
int e;
};
void foo (struct S *s)
{
if (s->b && s->c != 0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108479
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96745
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||etienne.doms at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108306
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 108306, which changed state.
Bug 108306 Summary: [12 Regression] false-positive -Warray-bounds warning
emitted with -fsanitize=shift
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108306
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108306
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9dccaeaa586a1634e1f6a0f4c51806f3c3aea63b
commit r12-9091-g9dccaeaa586a1634e1f6a0f4c51806f3c3aea63b
Author: Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48783
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.1.0
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108605
Bug ID: 108605
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in ipa_push_agg_values_from_jfunc,
at ipa-cp.cc:2089
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108608
Bug ID: 108608
Summary: [12/13 Regression] AArch64 vectorizer ICE in
vect_transform_reduction
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108608
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.3
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108608
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The ICE is on:
7755 gimple_match_op op;
7756 if (!gimple_extract_op (stmt_info->stmt, ))
7757gcc_unreachable ();
7758 gcc_assert (op.code.is_tree_code ());
7759 auto code =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103979
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Tried to reproduce the #c0 ICE all the way back to
r11-5002-ge3b3b59683c1e7d31a9d313dd97394abebf644be but couldn't, even that
version successfully DCEs the asm goto (though, in all cases during RTL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48783
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
See also thread starting at
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/20221208105944.660323-1-jose.march...@oracle.com/
.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108552
--- Comment #47 from Linus Torvalds ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #45)
> For user code
>
> volatile long long x;
> void foo () { x++; }
>
> emitting inc + adc with memory operands is only "incorrect" in re-ordering
> the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97642
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84514
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Still happens with current trunk.
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 :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108606
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13 Regression] ICE in |[13 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108606
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108605
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Slightly more reduced:
```
struct S {
char a;
char b;
char c;
int d[0x7fffu];
int e;
};
void foo (S *s)
{
if (s->b && s->c != 0)
__builtin_abort ();
}
void bar ()
{
struct S s[2];
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108605
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108608
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The original code in kokkos had roughly:
Real max_rel_err = -1;
const Real rel_tol = std::numeric_limits::epsilon();
for (int n = 0; n < N; n++) {
for (int k = 0; k < N; k++) {
for (int j
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108608
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
#define N 64
extern double host_du[N][N][N][N];
int
foo (void)
{
double max_rel_err = -1;
const double rel_tol = __DBL_EPSILON__;
for (int n = 0; n < N; n++)
for (int k = 0; k < N; k++)
for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108559
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> This might be related to C++ core issue cwg2403: https://wg21.link/cwg2403
Indeed. We don't expect the copy to be elided because of that issue, but we
are
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
