https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103799
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103799
Bug ID: 103799
Summary: switch expansion could be smarter
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95821
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Confirmed.
> auto f(char c)
> {
> auto t = "123";
> int t1;
> switch (c)
> {
>case '1':
> t1 = 1;
>case '2':
> t1 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95821
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103798
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |tree-optimization
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103490
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to John McCall from comment #3)
> I'm not sure I agree that that's the letter of the law, but even taken that
> as given, I think I would argue that it's a defect rather than something
> that has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103798
Bug ID: 103798
Summary: Missed optimization: char_traits::find (and thus
string_view::find_first_of) is slow when invoked with
short strings
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103490
John McCall changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rjmccall at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103788
--- Comment #5 from Arseny Solokha ---
Can it be related to PR94276?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86126
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98500
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 97458, which changed state.
Bug 97458 Summary: C++ parsing fails when calling specialized template method
inside lambda
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97458
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82980
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gabriel_machado at live dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97458
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82980
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Regression in determination |[9/10/11/12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82326
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81973
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||link-failure
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103604
--- Comment #26 from YunQiang Su ---
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #25)
> Fixed layout has been pushed out, should be all good now.
(In reply to YunQiang Su from comment #19)
> (In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #18)
> > (In reply
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81371
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |driver
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79424
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103270
luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36282
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35606
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103793
luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |luoxhu at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85461
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Using constexpr is a decent workaround.
Note enum version of this is rejected by all compilers:
template
struct bitWidthHolding {
enum {width = (v == 0) ? 0 : bitWidthHolding<(v>>1)>::width + 1};
};
int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
Bug ID: 103797
Summary: Clang vectorized LightPixel while GCC does not
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66153
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
A little more reduced:
template struct c { obj data; };
struct r {};
template obj g(const obj );
template
auto g(const c & arg)
-> c(arg.data))>
{
return c(arg.data))>{};
}
int main()
{
c array;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66153
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is the full on reduced testcase (the previous one was wrong):
template struct Container {
obj data[1];
};
template struct Recursive {};
template obj function(const obj )
{
return obj{};
}
template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103611
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66153
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced further:
#include
template struct TypeMapper { static const int NestLevel =
T::NestLevel; };
template<> struct TypeMapper { static const int NestLevel = 0; };
template struct Container { obj data;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66153
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Severity|major
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103739
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103528
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7c6ae994fb587c19ca14aebe18dbc9aca83be609
commit r12-6091-g7c6ae994fb587c19ca14aebe18dbc9aca83be609
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103794
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100673
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jack.cui2 at foxmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103790
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103791
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>For some reason I can't find a preprocessed file.
Because you used -E with -save-temps, so the preprocessed source will be in the
output file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103766
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82534
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
--- Comment #2 from Eric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58783
--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager ---
Note that on the Standards page of the manual, it currently says "fast
enumeration (only for Objective-C)", so once this bug is fixed, that
parenthetical can be removed:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103788
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
In .gimple already:
-g2:
[/app/example.cpp:11:5] goto ;
vs -g0:
[/app/example.cpp:10:17] goto ;
-g2:
:;
# DEBUG BEGIN STMT;
SAVE_EXPR ;, x = (SAVE_EXPR ) + x;;
# DEBUG BEGIN STMT;
++i;
#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103788
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > Likely latent which was exposed with r9-3352-g87bd153645f393a1.
here is a slightly modified (just line rather
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103788
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103788
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103796
Bug ID: 103796
Summary: ICE in gfc_conv_expr_val, at fortran/trans-expr.c:9446
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103795
Bug ID: 103795
Summary: ICE in gfc_conv_array_constructor_expr, at
fortran/trans-expr.c:8325
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103794
Bug ID: 103794
Summary: ICE in gfc_check_reshape, at fortran/check.c:4727
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103793
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103791
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
orted LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.0 20211221 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103773
--- Comment #4 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Roger Sayle from comment #3)
> Patch proposed
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/587258.html
Thank you for the patch. Does it work correctly with the red zone? I am
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103173
--- Comment #4 from Thomas De Schampheleire
---
Note also that in the test program of comment #3, there is no problem if using
the 'password' or 'application' fields, rather than 'user', which is first in
the structure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103773
--- Comment #3 from Roger Sayle ---
Patch proposed
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/587258.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103792
--- Comment #1 from Matt Cross ---
Address Sanitizer output from executing this:
=
==29328==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: stack-use-after-scope on address 0xbed737e0
at pc 0xb319b875
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103792
Bug ID: 103792
Summary: stack-use-after-scope false positive with exceptions
on ARM EABI
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103785
--- Comment #4 from Roger Sayle ---
This is either (i) related to PR 103773, where GNAT is somehow setting
optimize_size to a value greater than 1 (i.e. -Oz) and getting hit by the known
memory corruption or (ii) somehow related to the highpart
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103173
--- Comment #3 from Thomas De Schampheleire
---
While the original test program failed on gcc 11.2.0 but not on gcc 9.4.0, I
now encounter a very similar case that does fail on gcc 9.4.0:
--
#include
#define
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103791
Bug ID: 103791
Summary: A "segmentation fault" error appears when trying to
compile a kernel
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103790
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> > the error is correct suspend_always{} is not a valid return for
> > await_suspend() - but we should not ICE, of course.
>
> Note, we don't ICE on master since
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103790
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
> the error is correct suspend_always{} is not a valid return for
> await_suspend() - but we should not ICE, of course.
Note, we don't ICE on master since the revision.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103790
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103790
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92137
frankhb1989 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||frankhb1989 at gmail dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63281
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
If we need more than three insns to create a constant we are better off loading
it from memory, in all cases. Maybe three is too much already, at least on
some processors?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63281
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This is my g:72b2f3317b44, two years and a day old :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103790
Bug ID: 103790
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault when
playing with coroutine
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103789
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-21
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103788
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99578
--- Comment #20 from Paul Menzel ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #19)
> *** Bug 103768 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
It’d be great, if you could advise how to address the warning in SeaBIOS.
In file included
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103604
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103604
--- Comment #24 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:38d8dec9c9d6a735759ddebe6d90a50719a7f94c
commit r9-9881-g38d8dec9c9d6a735759ddebe6d90a50719a7f94c
Author: Iain Buclaw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103604
--- Comment #23 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ecd9684ec16ec0de2e4c0bb3f2097f98e6686cbe
commit r10-10354-gecd9684ec16ec0de2e4c0bb3f2097f98e6686cbe
Author: Iain Buclaw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103604
--- Comment #22 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:96a09dec2421af3e201f5a54dadb35f00917ea5b
commit r11-9408-g96a09dec2421af3e201f5a54dadb35f00917ea5b
Author: Iain Buclaw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49001
--- Comment #7 from Thiago Macieira ---
Hack to workaround:
asm(
".macro vmovapd args:vararg\n"
"vmovupd \\args\n"
".endm\n"
".macro vmovaps args:vararg\n"
"vmovups \\args\n"
".endm\n"
".macro vmovdqa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103789
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin ---
maskr is the same.
Fix probably similar to PR87851.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103789
Bug ID: 103789
Summary: ICE when providing kind argument to mask{l,r}
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103788
Bug ID: 103788
Summary: [9/10/11/12 Regression] '-fcompare-debug' failure
(length) w/ -O1
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93002
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93130
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69143
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||101926
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30354
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91502
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86011
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92549
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80517
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92135
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87206
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82328
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90622
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88013
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88402
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63281
--- Comment #11 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
While for the const which Bill said in comment9, 0x0008411
The code sequence still contains a few instructions:
e.g.
li %r11,0
ori %r11,%r11,0x8000
sldi %r11,%r11,32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87601
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87601
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
sub rsi, 1
testesi, esi
jne .L3
To
sub rsi, 1
jne .L3
Is not the same, the first is a 64bit subtract followed by a 32bit compare. in
the 2nd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87565
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87548
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
.file "example.cpp"
.intel_syntax noprefix
.text
.p2align 4,,15
.globl f(int*)
.type f(int*), @function
f(int*):
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87548
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87223
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ra |
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103785
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|lto |
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
