https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31531
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
The only patch which is needed now:
diff --git a/gcc/match.pd b/gcc/match.pd
index 37c5be9e5f4..ca6c9eff624 100644
--- a/gcc/match.pd
+++ b/gcc/match.pd
@@ -4729,10 +4729,11 @@ DEFINE_INT_AND_FLOAT_ROUND_FN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103226
--- Comment #21 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #20)
> Your c#19 was a bit hard to follow. But you hit the key issue.
Ughh sorry. I'm running on fumes here :-).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103226
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P4
--- Comment #20 from Jeffrey A.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103339
Bug ID: 103339
Summary: [modules] ICE in exporting module on use of outside
specialization
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103220
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102988
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102988
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:38e4a361e79a459947540920db645f3d7fa7221a
commit r12-5429-g38e4a361e79a459947540920db645f3d7fa7221a
Author: Alexandre Oliva
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103338
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||7.1.0
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103338
Bug ID: 103338
Summary: ICE: in tsubst_pack_expansion, at cp/pt.c:13167
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96889
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96889
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Antoni Boucher :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cfe8dbd9c08a5bce497646467c9d30942ec3efe0
commit r12-5428-gcfe8dbd9c08a5bce497646467c9d30942ec3efe0
Author: Antoni Boucher
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103217
--- Comment #5 from Dominique Martinet ---
Ah, this apparently needed the unused fields in the struct, and the extra
config_init() call.
Here's something trimmed down from the actual program instead of building back
up:
-
#define
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103220
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Simple fix:
diff --git a/gcc/match.pd b/gcc/match.pd
index 24a84e3b504..37c5be9e5f4 100644
--- a/gcc/match.pd
+++ b/gcc/match.pd
@@ -1607,7 +1607,8 @@ DEFINE_INT_AND_FLOAT_ROUND_FN (RINT)
(bitop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103220
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=103217
Dominique Martinet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100688
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95325
--- Comment #3 from Antoni ---
No.
The only patch that is ready for review is "libgccjit: add some reflection
functions in the jit C api".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69549
--- Comment #9 from jwjagersma at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 51840
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51840=edit
diagnostics
This patch adds checks for:
- Top-level AS-qualifiers on fields, local variables, function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95415
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #4 from David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95325
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103227
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to hubicka from comment #5)
> > I like the idea of transformation phases better than putting
> > everything into tree-inline (and by extension ipa-param-manipulation)
> > but perhaps we have to do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90941
Cristian Rodríguez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crrodriguez at opensuse dot org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103227
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
struct a{int a,b;};
int bar (struct a *a)
{
if (!a->a)
__builtin_abort ();
}
static
__attribute__ ((noinline))
int foo (struct a a)
{
struct a b = a;
bar ();
return b.a+b.b;
}
int
test()
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103227
--- Comment #5 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> I like the idea of transformation phases better than putting
> everything into tree-inline (and by extension ipa-param-manipulation)
> but perhaps we have to do aggregate constant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101180
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b751b225e4f02cf0c446e659e7c3e204096468bf
commit r12-5426-gb751b225e4f02cf0c446e659e7c3e204096468bf
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96004
--- Comment #1 from Óscar Fuentes ---
This looks like a duplicate of PR53637 / PR53637.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58487
Óscar Fuentes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc_bugzilla at axeitado dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103217
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103217
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f573d35147ca8433c102e1721d8c99fc432cb44b
commit r12-5424-gf573d35147ca8433c102e1721d8c99fc432cb44b
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103295
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103295
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1f8d01eb1476a997eb1fc686b60fccdf97747faa
commit r12-5421-g1f8d01eb1476a997eb1fc686b60fccdf97747faa
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80556
--- Comment #64 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d4943ce939d9654932624b9ece24c3a474ae4157
commit r12-5418-gd4943ce939d9654932624b9ece24c3a474ae4157
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87851
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103336
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
If you want to have a consistency between platforms, it might be best if you
use _Float128 instead of long double but _Float128 is not supported on all
targets really. It is only supported on targets which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103337
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103337
Bug ID: 103337
Summary: rejects-valid brace elision inside designated
initializer
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103231
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Macleod ---
Yes, ranger can currently create some very deep call chains, especially as it
evaluates values around back edges.
A general query on a stmt first checks if all the operands have been resolved,
and if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103295
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely ---
There's still one more fix needed for _M_construct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103217
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #23 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #21)
> (In reply to Bernhard Reutner-Fischer from comment #17)
> > Do we want to address arrays always at position 0 (maybe to help graphite ?)
>
> Helping graphite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51791|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103227
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Still, the interaction between IPA-CP and IPA-SRA is bad here. Just
looking at the optimized dump, one of the "specialized functions"
starts with:
[local count: 62767467]:
# DEBUG D#203 s=> row
#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102958
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b8f2efaed02e8b03d215d74e42d3707761772f64
commit r12-5414-gb8f2efaed02e8b03d215d74e42d3707761772f64
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103332
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b8f2efaed02e8b03d215d74e42d3707761772f64
commit r12-5414-gb8f2efaed02e8b03d215d74e42d3707761772f64
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103295
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2d76292bd6719d687bc77051da265df8ed7f5a61
commit r12-5413-g2d76292bd6719d687bc77051da265df8ed7f5a61
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102431
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103336
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103332
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)
> I suppressed a subset of these warnings in
> g:9a27acc30a34b7854db32eac562306cebac6fa1e.
Ah yes, I'll add the same again then, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
--- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #13)
> (In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #11)
> > As I mentioned privately, we could do with an audit of our implementation of
> > standard patterns in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103336
Bug ID: 103336
Summary: [arm64] operations on long double generate calls to
libgcc
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103335
Bug ID: 103335
Summary: new test case gcc.dg/tree-ssa/modref-dse-4.c fails
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #11)
> As I mentioned privately, we could do with an audit of our implementation of
> standard patterns in general, since we tend to find such missing cases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
When is the lowering done currently? Only for the ops that have no other way
of doing, and things are merged back to an __int128 immediately after that?
If that is what is going on, then that is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102740
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102538
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103299
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103312
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|kargl at gcc dot gnu.org |
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
As I mentioned privately, we could do with an audit of our implementation of
standard patterns in general, since we tend to find such missing cases more
often than I'd like...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
FWIW, I think the vector lowering pass is reasonable. These things always look
horrible in isolation, but the lowering allows more optimization when the
target doesn't really support the data type.
This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19808
--- Comment #55 from Marek Polacek ---
Aah, I should check is_empty_class before issuing the warning I guess.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102867
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33925
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.0
Summary|[10/11/12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33925
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:16137fbb9256ef365dd498d39024eb33de1a4cd8
commit r12-5410-g16137fbb9256ef365dd498d39024eb33de1a4cd8
Author: Martin Sebor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102867
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:16137fbb9256ef365dd498d39024eb33de1a4cd8
commit r12-5410-g16137fbb9256ef365dd498d39024eb33de1a4cd8
Author: Martin Sebor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103254
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103254
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ee448a523d377f9ed882dac806d2f5001bfa2432
commit r12-5409-gee448a523d377f9ed882dac806d2f5001bfa2432
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103334
Bug ID: 103334
Summary: missing -Wc++-compat for a function redeclared with
different qualifiers
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81674
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #6)
> Reconfirmed with GCC 11. See also pr78391. The patch in pr19808 comment 29
> was either never committed or even submitted, and the other patch for the
> same
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78391
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103088
--- Comment #20 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #19)
> Ughh, I was nerd sniped. Couldn't let it go ;-).
>
> The problem is this construct in Perl_do_ncmp:
>
> if (lnv < rnv)
> return -1;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103282
--- Comment #7 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Looks like it is 32 bit only.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
Bug ID: 10
Summary: [accepts-invalid] function template argument deduction
for incompatible 'transformed A' / 'deduced A' pair
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103088
--- Comment #19 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Ughh, I was nerd sniped. Couldn't let it go ;-).
The problem is this construct in Perl_do_ncmp:
if (lnv < rnv)
return -1;
if (lnv > rnv)
return 1;
if (lnv == rnv)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103332
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103332
Bug ID: 103332
Summary: Spurious -Wstringop-overflow warnings in libstdc++
tests
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102838
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yeah, but clearly not in libgomp, but in the testcase, so IMNSHO we shouldn't
reuse this PR for that. On x86_64-linux I see movaps into and out from the
thr.1 TLS variable and in two spots to/from stack,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102436
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Sounds reasonable (not backporting, but holding bug open for now). I'll
probably do some testing with it internally, so if you end up wanting to
revisit the backporting question, reach out I may have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103311
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103330
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103330
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:487d604b6fa0f0a981eadc216d9e481d08ed7e7b
commit r12-5407-g487d604b6fa0f0a981eadc216d9e481d08ed7e7b
Author: Tamar Christina
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103311
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:487d604b6fa0f0a981eadc216d9e481d08ed7e7b
commit r12-5407-g487d604b6fa0f0a981eadc216d9e481d08ed7e7b
Author: Tamar Christina
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101731
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> > I still think it would be best if Gimple did *never* split data. It
> > simply does not know enough about the machine and what the eventual
> > machine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103168
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Value numbering for PRE of |[9/10/11/12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Btw:
> mfvsrd 9,34
> mfvsrld 8,34
> mfvsrd 11,35
> mfvsrld 10,35
> li 7,1
> cmpd 0,9,11
> bgt 0,.L2
> cmpld 0,9,11
> beq 0,.L5
> .L3:
> li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #6)
> Ah, now I see. Thanks!
>
> Power10 has some new 128-bit insns (and p9 and p8 did before, too).
>
> I still think it would be best if Gimple did *never*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Ah, now I see. Thanks!
Power10 has some new 128-bit insns (and p9 and p8 did before, too).
I still think it would be best if Gimple did *never* split data. It
simply does not know enough about the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
At first glance, this is probably because vector.md's definition of
vec_cmp isn't defined for V1TImode. Probably needs to be changed
to use VEC_IP rather than VEC_I and implement all the cases for 128-bit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103328
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
And
static void
verify_scope_blocks (tree block, tree supercontext)
{
gcc_assert (BLOCK_SUPERCONTEXT (block) == supercontext);
for (tree t = BLOCK_SUBBLOCKS (block); t; t = BLOCK_CHAIN (t))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103328
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe ---
OK. I need to see where I slipped up - we are supposed to extract the outlined
portion of the function and then wrap that in the various machinery specified
in the std.
However, blocks associated with parms
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94376
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94376
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fd740165e54151ea794fca34904f5c2e2ea1dcda
commit r12-5403-gfd740165e54151ea794fca34904f5c2e2ea1dcda
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Above was compiled with -O2 -mcpu=power10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Sure. Consider:
#include
vector bool __int128
foo (vector signed __int128 a, vector signed __int128 b)
{
return vec_cmpgt (a, b);
}
With gimple folding we emulate in 64-bit mode:
mfvsrd 9,34
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103328
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Note the BLOCK is lost somewhere between CFG build (still OK as by
verify_gimple_in_cfg) and free_lang_data where it is lost.
Oh, so the BLOCK in question is used in two different functions BIND_EXPRs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103331
Bug ID: 103331
Summary: There should be a rule to make build.log in the
top-level Makefile
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100518
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100843
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103329
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
In the -fdump-tree-original=/dev/null case we have extra
<1><107>: Abbrev Number: 3 (DW_TAG_structure_type)
<108> DW_AT_name: (indirect string, offset: 0xb8):
__is_integer
<10c>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103330
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
---
1 - 100 of 170 matches
Mail list logo
