https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114510
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114508
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114361
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Oh it needs -g too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114513
--- Comment #1 from Di Zhao ---
I've debugged this a bit. From dump file 311r.sched1, the problem seems to have
something to do with floatunsdidf2. After processing this instruction, the
costs of FP_REGS became 0. (r=107 is "b")
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114515
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The PR101523 fix makes sure we do not get the same I2 back, because that
violates algorithmic assumptions of combine. Importantly, the way it was
things can be changed back time and time again, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 114057, which changed state.
Bug 114057 Summary: [14 Regression] 435.gromacs fails verification with -Ofast
-march={znver2,znver4} and PGO after r14-7272-g57f611604e8bab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114057
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114510
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note it looks like fwprop was doing it in GCC 13 but not on the trunk due to a
cost reason. I have not looked further. There could be some cost issues in the
aarch64 backend dealing with address costs too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114514
Bug ID: 114514
Summary: v16qi >> 7 can be optimized with vpcmpgtb
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49421
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 regression]|[11/12/13 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114512
Bug ID: 114512
Summary: Optimization on "test if bit N is set" pattern ((C >>
x) & 1)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114509
Bug ID: 114509
Summary: Infinite loop with openmp
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114510
Bug ID: 114510
Summary: [14 Regression] missed proping of multiply by 2 into
address of load/stores
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114509
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114511
Bug ID: 114511
Summary: [Regression] Missed optimization: x = -y; x = c + x +
y; ==> x=c;
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0bad303944a1d2311c07d59912b4dfa7bff988c8
commit r14-9701-g0bad303944a1d2311c07d59912b4dfa7bff988c8
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113359
--- Comment #22 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 57828
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57828=edit
Potential fix
I'm testing this patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114515
Bug ID: 114515
Summary: [14 Regression] Failure to use aarch64 lane forms
after PR101523
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 57829
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57829=edit
smaller testcase
Smaller testcase, shows the same compile-time issue at -O0. At -O1 it's a lot
less bad but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89855
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #12 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114505
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> For the opposite direction, this is the fix:
> ```
> diff --git a/gcc/lto-compress.cc b/gcc/lto-compress.cc
> index c167ac967aa..1475674e7ac 100644
> ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53639
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114510
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note I was inspired to test this due to LLVM change:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86894 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114501
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
The assert basically verifies free-lang-data does its job.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114515
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114515
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, why does forwprop not do this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114014
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|btf-debug, ctf-debug|
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114014
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||muecker at gwdg dot de
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114361
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114490
--- Comment #7 from Kang-Che Sung ---
I just come here to say that PR 114512 is the real issue that I wish to see
fixed. It might be okay for me when the FLAGS of "shl" becomes unused by GCC,
since other than CF (carry) and SF (sign) I don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112723
--- Comment #3 from Yi <652023330028 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> ---
https://godbolt.org/z/zKq3dsqW3
This is a regression since gcc-7.3. If the bisection right:
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/540b5cb6c70.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113907
--- Comment #69 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0923fe2d4808c16b72c1d1bfe28220dd326d8b76
commit r14-9705-g0923fe2d4808c16b72c1d1bfe28220dd326d8b76
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114515
--- Comment #5 from Richard Sandiford ---
For the record, the associated new testsuite failures are:
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/ashltidisi.c scan-assembler-times asr 3
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/asimd-mull-elem.c scan-assembler-times
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114511
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114515
--- Comment #3 from Richard Sandiford ---
In RTL terms, the dup is vec_duplicate. The combination is:
Trying 10 -> 13:
10: r107:V4SF=vec_duplicate(r115:SF)
REG_DEAD r115:SF
13: r110:V4SF=r111:V4SF*r107:V4SF
REG_DEAD
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109925
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113372
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||shaohua.li at inf dot ethz.ch
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98842
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #3)
> Adding that constrain completely breaks std::optional comparisons,
> because it causes constraint recursion. To avoid that, an additional
> check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114307
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Maxim Kuvyrkov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b8e7aaaf350a4584d9b76e8dd69daa2203bac339
commit r14-9706-gb8e7aaaf350a4584d9b76e8dd69daa2203bac339
Author: Maxim Kuvyrkov
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114517
Bug ID: 114517
Summary: gm2 does not allow comparion operator # in the first
column
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112303
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d5a3b4afcdf4d517334a2717dbb65ae0d2c26507
commit r14-9707-gd5a3b4afcdf4d517334a2717dbb65ae0d2c26507
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114520
Bug ID: 114520
Summary: Incorrect ordering of import/export statements cause
confusing error messages
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53392
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114520
--- Comment #2 from Gaius Mulley ---
Created attachment 57832
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57832=edit
Proposed fix
The error recovery causes misleading error messages to appear if an EXPORT
and IMPORT statement are in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112723
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|enhancement |normal
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112723
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
gimple-ssa-strength-reduction definitely should be improved to handle this case
where it should understand that (a+CSTWITHLASTBITSET)*2 can be done as
a*2+NEWCST if the type can wrap. Only can do that if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114517
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114520
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114521
Bug ID: 114521
Summary: aarch64: wrong code with Neon ld1/st1x4 intrinsics
gcc-11 and earlier
Product: gcc
Version: 11.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110987
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103716
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:48d23749534ca96b3f0883579b44700a17e83d15
commit r13-8503-g48d23749534ca96b3f0883579b44700a17e83d15
Author: Paul Thomas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114521
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
g:66f206b85395c273980e2b81a54dbddc4897e4a7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103716
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114520
--- Comment #3 from Gaius Mulley ---
The fix is not elegant, but it is accurate:
$ gm2 localmodule2.mod
localmodule2.mod:13:3: error: In inner module ‘local’: an IMPORT statement must
preceed an EXPORT statement
13 | IMPORT mult2 ;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114520
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aeee63ffbf4f4fbc4d90d8aae808d6b67f0148a3
commit r14-9710-gaeee63ffbf4f4fbc4d90d8aae808d6b67f0148a3
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114522
Bug ID: 114522
Summary: [14 regression] gcc.target/arm/aes_xor_combine.c
scan-assembler-not veor fails after
r14-9692-g839bc42772ba7a
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114522
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114517
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:04799f03e8d01b903295ef3a100a0117b7ddbf5e
commit r14-9709-g04799f03e8d01b903295ef3a100a0117b7ddbf5e
Author: Gaius Mulley
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114517
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114519
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114521
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54412
--- Comment #43 from Avraham Adler ---
Thank you, Dmitry, but that particular solution may not be possible for me.
When I try compiling with -mstackrealign -mpreferred-stack-boundary=5
-mincoming-stack-boundary=5 instead of forcing unaligned
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: janisozaur+gcc at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 57830
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57830=edit
failure log gcc 20240328
Godbolt l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114521
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
Summary|aarch64: wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114520
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114414
Filip Kastl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 114414, which changed state.
Bug 114414 Summary: 15-18% exec time slowdown of 433.milc on Zen2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114414
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114518
Bug ID: 114518
Summary: [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/combine-2-2.c fails
after r14-9692-g839bc42772ba7a
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114414
Filip Kastl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14 Regression] 15-18% exec |15-18% exec time slowdown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
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=114516
Bug ID: 114516
Summary: RISC-V: TSVC2 s315 has spill with dynamic lmul
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114307
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114481
Filip Kastl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14 Regression] 14% exec|14% exec time slowdown of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mikael Morin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7f233feafd657250340be3b3500d2697948ae3ed
commit r14-9703-g7f233feafd657250340be3b3500d2697948ae3ed
Author: Mikael Morin
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114475
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mikael Morin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7f233feafd657250340be3b3500d2697948ae3ed
commit r14-9703-g7f233feafd657250340be3b3500d2697948ae3ed
Author: Mikael Morin
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109925
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7942558f27038461f948ca10140a156ae678cdf8
commit r14-9704-g7942558f27038461f948ca10140a156ae678cdf8
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114513
Bug ID: 114513
Summary: [aarch64] floating-point registers are used when GPRs
are preferred
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114515
--- Comment #4 from Richard Sandiford ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Btw, why does forwprop not do this?
Not 100% sure (I wasn't involved in choosing the current heuristics). But
fwprop can propagate across blocks, so there
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114506
JuzheZhong changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114523
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
There is nothing magical about phiopt (in this case) is doing that can't be
produced by an user.
What does the final code from the backend looks like?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114431
Bug 114431 depends on bug 114523, which changed state.
Bug 114523 Summary: bpf: ssa-phiopt optimization generates unverifiable code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114523
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114523
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114526
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2004-01/msg00599.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114523
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
> - Disable the optimization for BPF until the verifier fixes the limitation if
> possible.
NO.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114523
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
```
int foo1 ()
{
int quux = bar ();
_Bool t = quux == 0;
_Bool t1 = baz != 0;
int t2 = t;
t2 ^= t1;
return t2;
}
```
Produces the same resulting asm.
The way clang produces comparisons is:
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114523
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
```
int foo2 ()
{
int quux = bar ();
unsigned long t3 = (unsigned int)quux;
t3+=-1;
t3 = t3>>63;
unsigned char t = t3;
unsigned long t4 = (unsigned int)baz;
t4 = -t4;
t4 = t4>>63;
unsigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114523
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
The problem is the verifier:
Mär 26 23:57:12 H systemd[1]: 17: (ac) w0 ^= w3 ;
R0_w=scalar() R3_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=1,var_off=(0x0;
0x1))
Mär 26 23:57:12 H
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100667
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8bb3ef3f6e335e8794590fb712a2661d11d21973
commit r14-9713-g8bb3ef3f6e335e8794590fb712a2661d11d21973
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111289
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by John David Anglin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:86b0b1bec6790f84b7a56fcef2a0a6c8cd91ffef
commit r14-9714-g86b0b1bec6790f84b7a56fcef2a0a6c8cd91ffef
Author: John David Anglin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114523
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
The bpf verifier is just plain broken when it comes to subreg usage. So after
every 32bit usage you need to output a zero extend. To fix that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114525
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114523
--- Comment #13 from Jose E. Marchesi ---
Thanks. The new title is way better. And thank you for the further analysis
and the reproducer that also makes clang to generate the no-verifiable code!
I wonder, is the issue also there when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100667
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12/13 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112723
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
>
> So what's missing is a simplification pattern that ignores ops that only
> alter
> bits that are dont-care in a later operation. That fits the backprop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114523
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> The problem is the verifier:
> Mär 26 23:57:12 H systemd[1]: 17: (ac) w0 ^= w3 ;
> R0_w=scalar()
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114525
Bug ID: 114525
Summary: Incorrect code generated when setting a value through
a pointer-to-member on a ternary returning an object
reference
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114524
Bug ID: 114524
Summary: Use less expensive expression when expressions are
equal
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114523
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
here is one which makes similar code for both gcc and clang:
```
int foo2 ()
{
int quux = bar ();
unsigned long t3 = (unsigned int)quux;
t3+=-1;
asm("":"+r"(t3));
t3 = t3>>63;
unsigned char t =
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
