https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65
--- Comment #12 from Thorsten Glaser ---
Created attachment 55808
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55808=edit
tarball (.xz) with preprocessed and assembly output
I’ve verified (back to unmodified source) that it is indeed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111215
Bug ID: 111215
Summary: New test case gcc.dg/tree-ssa/cond-bool-2.c fails
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111209
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-08-28
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65
--- Comment #13 from Thorsten Glaser ---
The interesting part is around the occurrence of…
# eval.c:399: sp = cstrchr(sp, '\0') + 1;
… in the .s files (it occurs thrice, the first is the beginning of the setup
part,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65
--- Comment #17 from Thorsten Glaser ---
Hm, okay, I’ll try to find if I can trigger it in glibc/x32 then…
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111216
Bug ID: 111216
Summary: [14 regression] instructions counts for vector tests
change after r14-3258-ge7a36e4715c716
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111215
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111209
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Just use __int128 addition if all you want is double-word addition (or long
long for 32-bit arches)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111212
--- Comment #2 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
reduced:
% g++ -maltivec -mcpu=power8 -O2 -c testcase.i
testcase.i:15:30: warning: '{anonymous}::m {anonymous}::n(a) [with f =
short int]' used but never defined
15 | template m n(a);
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111059
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65
--- Comment #18 from Thorsten Glaser ---
I cannot, unfortunately. But I have found _another_ “mitigation”:
varsub() is static and has only one caller:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102417
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu ---
We need a testcase which can be reproduced with glibc since the bug may be in
other parts of dietlibc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111209
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> > Just use __int128 addition if all you want is double-word addition (or long
> > long for 32-bit arches)?
>
> Well,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65
--- Comment #10 from Thorsten Glaser ---
oh no, wait, that was for strchr… the strlen one… but, yeah, that too:
extern size_t xstrlen(const char *s);
and changing the line again to…
sp += xstrlen(sp) + 1;
…
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65
--- Comment #11 from Thorsten Glaser ---
OK, to summarise:
When using the original code but providing a wrapper function (in a separate
CU) for strchr, it works.
When replacing the strchr with strlen (which GCC also does), it fails even
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111214
Bug ID: 111214
Summary: omp_get_num_procs: Improve documentation - especially
for devices
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1)
> Can you try
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-August/627024.html?
The patch
* combine.cc (simplify_compare_const): Properly handle unsigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65
--- Comment #16 from Thorsten Glaser ---
If I add -maddress-mode=long to the build of the expr.c file, then link it with
the rest, it still fails.
I’m not sure about reducing, and not sure about the cross-anything, but I *did*
get it to fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07
Gabriel Ivăncescu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gabrielopcode at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111209
--- Comment #3 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Just use __int128 addition if all you want is double-word addition (or long
> long for 32-bit arches)?
Well, I've presented this merely as an illustrative example.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111209
Bug ID: 111209
Summary: GCC fails to understand adc pattern
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111210
Bug ID: 111210
Summary: Wrong code at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu since
r12-4849-gf19791565d7
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||adhemerval.zanella at linaro
dot o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Summary|[13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111211
Bug ID: 111211
Summary: No warning for iterator going out of scope
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111212
Bug ID: 111212
Summary: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at
recog.cc:2791
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.3
--- Comment #8 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111211
--- Comment #1 from Lehua Ding ---
Reproduce:
Compile Command: gcc -O3 -Wall -Wextra
C Code:
```
#include
int foo (uint64_t ddr0_addr_access)
{
uint64_t check[1] = {0};
for (int k = 0; k < 7; k += 1)
{
asm volatile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
I think if IPA modref declares the argument dead at the call site then IPA
CP/SRA cannot declare it known constant.
Now, I wonder why IPA CP/SRA does not replace the known constant parameter
with an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111210
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111212
--- Comment #1 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
Compilation line:
% /usr/bin/c++ -freport-bug -DHWY_STATIC_DEFINE -DTOOLCHAIN_MISS_ASM_HWCAP_H
-I/home/malat/highway -maltivec -mcpu=power8 -O2 -g -DNDEBUG -fPIE
-fvisibility=hidden
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110891
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110891
>
> --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111212
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.3
Summary|internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100932
Nicolas Boulenguez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111211
--- Comment #3 from Lehua Ding ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> We diagnose this after unrolling, so the difference is whether we unroll or
> not.
But based on the assembly code it looks like both are unrolled.
foo:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111211
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
We diagnose this after unrolling, so the difference is whether we unroll or
not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111213
Bug ID: 111213
Summary: -Wanalyzer-out-of-bounds false negative with `return
arr[9];`
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #4)
> So here ipa-modref declares the field dead, while ipa-prop determines its
> value even if it is unused and makes it used later?
This is what I wanted to ask
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111210
--- Comment #2 from Shaohua Li ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #1)
> 'c' is called with 'd' pointing to 'long e[2]', so
>
> return *(int *)(d + 1);
>
> is an aliasing violation (dereferencing a pointer to an incompatible
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104167
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111210
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66
--- Comment #5 from gnu_bugzilla_gcc at catelyn dot tech ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> note the situation is difficult to rectify - ideally the vectorizer
> would see that we require two 64bit register pieces but it doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111210
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
The testcase is small enough to notice the issue by inspection.
Note that you get the "expected" answer with -fno-strict-aliasing, and as
explained in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ it is one of the things
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111210
--- Comment #5 from Shaohua Li ---
Thanks for all your comments!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66
--- Comment #2 from gnu_bugzilla_gcc at catelyn dot tech ---
Created attachment 55807
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55807=edit
preprocessed file containing the benchmark code I used
I compiled this code (although using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66
--- Comment #3 from gnu_bugzilla_gcc at catelyn dot tech ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Unless you can come up with an actual benchmark showing the vector code is
> slower I'd say it's not. Given it's smaller it should win
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> I think if IPA modref declares the argument dead at the call site then IPA
> CP/SRA cannot declare it known constant.
It is declared "killed" by the function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||101926
--- Comment #4 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111211
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Lehua Ding from comment #3)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > We diagnose this after unrolling, so the difference is whether we unroll or
> > not.
>
> But based on the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104167
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #8)
> On arm-eabi targets (thus, using newlib), we've noticed new errors:
New since when? These files haven't changed in the last two weeks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cbde03abe5dbba13b992a3b610efe43aefc0e234
commit r14-3527-gcbde03abe5dbba13b992a3b610efe43aefc0e234
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104167
--- Comment #10 from Christophe Lyon ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #8)
> > On arm-eabi targets (thus, using newlib), we've noticed new errors:
>
> New since when? These files
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111211
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||inline-asm
Summary|No
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65
--- Comment #9 from Thorsten Glaser ---
> Does providing your own (trivially correct) strlen implementation in a
> separate CU also fix the issue?
Even providing one that just calls dietlibc’s (in a separate CU) fixes the
issue, so I’m very
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101676
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> why is | better than ^?
Just to reply to this. The reasoning from simplify-rtx.cc:
/* If we are XORing two things that have no bits in common,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111216
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111219
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111209
--- Comment #5 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> > > Just use __int128 addition if all you want is double-word addition (or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95185
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107880
Bug 107880 depends on bug 107881, which changed state.
Bug 107881 Summary: (a <= b) == (b >= a) should be optimized to (a == b)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107887
Bug 107887 depends on bug 107881, which changed state.
Bug 107881 Summary: (a <= b) == (b >= a) should be optimized to (a == b)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41
--- Comment #3 from etienne_lorrain at yahoo dot fr ---
Just reporting that the problem do not appears when --disable-multilib is asked
at the configure stage.
Unlike for ARM64 host compiling a native compiler, you need to say such
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95185
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111217
Bug ID: 111217
Summary: variant of cond-bool-2.c fails
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111215
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111215
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b7f9ee7fb89fc9c48f03970e8e6581c7bae58f5a
commit r14-3529-gb7f9ee7fb89fc9c48f03970e8e6581c7bae58f5a
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111217
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b7f9ee7fb89fc9c48f03970e8e6581c7bae58f5a
commit r14-3529-gb7f9ee7fb89fc9c48f03970e8e6581c7bae58f5a
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||95185
--- Comment #13 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111219
--- Comment #2 from Nick Desaulniers ---
Ah ok that makes sense.
Would it be possible to get that behavior documented on this page?
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Warning-Options.html#index-Wformat-truncation
We can probably modify clang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111215
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
So there might be two ways of fixing this:
[local count: 1073741824]:
if (a_3(D) != 0)
goto ; [50.00%]
else
goto ; [50.00%]
[local count: 536870912]:
if (b_2(D) != 0)
goto ;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111219
Bug ID: 111219
Summary: -Wformat-truncation false negative with %p modifier
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (tested with gcc version 14.0.0 20230828 (experimental) [master
> r14-3528-gc3669bb677b] (GCC)
No ICE with a 14.0.0 20230824 gfortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110983
Mao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sray at live dot com
--- Comment #3 from Mao
cktrace with any bug report.
See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
(tested with gcc version 14.0.0 20230828 (experimental) [master
r14-3528-gc3669bb677b] (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111216
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-08-28
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to etienne_lorrain from comment #3)
> Unlike for ARM64 host compiling a native compiler, you need to say such
> --disable-multilib for amd64 compiling a native compiler.
Well aarch64 (arm64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107887
Bug 107887 depends on bug 107881, which changed state.
Bug 107881 Summary: (a <= b) == (b >= a) should be optimized to (a == b)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107880
Bug 107880 depends on bug 107881, which changed state.
Bug 107881 Summary: (a <= b) == (b >= a) should be optimized to (a == b)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107880
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110943
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Lehua Ding :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:973eb0deb467c79cc21f265a710a81054cfd3e8c
commit r14-3535-g973eb0deb467c79cc21f265a710a81054cfd3e8c
Author: Lehua Ding
Date: Tue Aug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
I have a patch which is able to optimize this to:
t1_3 = b_1(D) >= a_2(D);
_6 = b_1(D) > a_2(D);
_4 = t1_3 ^ _6;
But then we need to handle some simplifications for ^.
I will handle that next week
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110983
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Mao from comment #3)
> Created attachment 55810 [details]
> invoke-doc-patch
>
> I think this can help fix the issue.
> I am not sure how to build the HTML web pages. But I also checked the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110111
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
f1:
_6 = b_2(D) ^ c_3(D);
_7 = a_1(D) & _6;
_4 = c_3(D) ^ _7;
Which was done due to:
/* (x & ~m) | (y & m) -> ((x ^ y) & m) ^ x */
(simplify
(bit_ior:c (bit_and:cs @0 (bit_not @2)) (bit_and:cs @1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111220
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
