http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54716
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55266
Bug #: 55266
Summary: vector expansion: 36 movs for 4 adds
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53101
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-11 22:18:13
UTC ---
PR 48037 seems related (it was the scalar case).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55281
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-12 16:18:52
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
[ Using ?: with a vector condition ]
I was surprised only C++ handles this and not C BTW.
Sorry, I didn't have time to do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55281
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-12 16:39:27
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
I'm just testing that, so I know it doesn't have side-effects.
I meant: instead of testing, so the optimization still occurs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55266
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-13 10:23:03
UTC ---
The first copy is PR 52436.
The second copy has a patch posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg00900.html
The last copy would
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53024
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55359
Bug #: 55359
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE in simplify_subreg accessing an
unaligned subvector
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53024
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16 20:03:05
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
I don't think we can ever support vector size of non power 2 size.
I don't think we *will* ever support them (too much work
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53101
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16 23:03:47
UTC ---
Created attachment 28713
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28713
Tweak on the patch of PR48037
This is a slight extension
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55382
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-18 22:13:37
UTC ---
Seems related to PR 53017.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54471
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-21 17:18:47
UTC ---
Jakub, your patch makes sense to me (or min0.is_zero() and min1.is_zero()). I
am ashamed I managed to get products with [0,n] (with n larger than MAX/2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55425
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41233
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53094
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55001
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27 23:52:58
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Can this be considered fixed?
Not completely. It doesn't fail anymore (so I marked PR55167 as fixed), but for
architectures
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55266
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28 10:11:31
UTC ---
Author: glisse
Date: Wed Nov 28 10:11:27 2012
New Revision: 193884
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193884
Log:
2012-11-28 Marc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53094
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28 17:25:51
UTC ---
Created attachment 28820
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28820
Incomplete patch
Slightly ridiculous: with this patch, v+v still
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53094
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28820|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53094
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28 21:52:54
UTC ---
Handling subscripts will be harder. Currently, v[1] is turned into ((const
long*)v)[1]. But (const long*)v doesn't work as a constant expression. So we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53094
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29 15:40:27
UTC ---
Author: glisse
Date: Thu Nov 29 15:40:16 2012
New Revision: 193938
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193938
Log:
2012-11-29 Marc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53094
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|vector literal |constexpr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54855
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-30 01:31:25
UTC ---
Created attachment 28832
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28832
simplify-rtx patch
With the patch, this code takes a single
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55549
Bug #: 55549
Summary: zero_extend and vectors
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45216
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-01 08:51:12
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
unsigned long rotate_left(unsigned long a, unsigned int shift)
{
return a shift | a (sizeof(a) * 8 - shift
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50829
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50713
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-01 16:54:08
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
We seem to do better now. I see essentially the same code for the vector and
loop versions. The main issue left is for dfma8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50829
--- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-01
19:50:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 28846
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28846
Use subreg
Hmm, I don't understand why we use UNSPEC_CAST. I tried
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44551
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55573
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-03 13:38:19
UTC ---
Thanks Jakub, each time I introduce a regression, you fix it before I even have
time to read the PR :-)
I haven't looked into it yet, but would
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53094
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-03 14:53:52
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
typedef float __attribute__( ( vector_size( 4*sizeof(float) ) ) ) V4;
constexpr V4 build(float x,float y, float z) { return (V4){x,y
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53094
--- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-03
19:52:39 UTC ---
Created attachment 28864
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28864
minimal cumulative patch for comment #9
(In reply to comment #9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53094
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-03
22:30:53 UTC ---
typedef float __attribute__( ( vector_size( 4*sizeof(float) ) ) ) V4;
constexpr V4 v = {1,1,1,0};
constexpr V4 r = v[0]+v;
is enough to reproduce
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55583
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55576
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-04 10:47:38
UTC ---
For the example of comment #3, clang compiles it happily, and comeau gives this
message:
ComeauTest.c, line 12: error: type name is not allowed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15376
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27109
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-04 18:48:27
UTC ---
This seems to be well handled in reassoc1 now:
Optimizing range tests a_2(D) -[0, 99] and +[0, 200] and -[10, 160]
into a_2(D) + 4294967135 = 39
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53435
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-04 19:18:26
UTC ---
Can we close this one?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55611
Bug #: 55611
Summary: Operand swapping for commutative operators
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55619
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-08 08:49:35
UTC ---
Indeed I got it down to this code, which fails just the same with an int
instead of a vector. I didn't know it was forbidden to pass constants with the
m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53313
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-08 17:59:31
UTC ---
Created attachment 28901
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28901
-Weverything
A very basic implementation of -Weverything (I don't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55645
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-11 10:03:27
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
// possible syntax
void compute() {
for (int i=0;i!=1024;++i) {
if likely(a[i]b[i]) // very often
c[i]=a[i]+b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53094
--- Comment #14 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-11
20:20:34 UTC ---
Author: glisse
Date: Tue Dec 11 20:20:23 2012
New Revision: 194421
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194421
Log:
2012-12-11 Marc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55611
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-11 22:12:01
UTC ---
Created attachment 28931
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28931
Use tree code to determine the canonical order
In this patch, I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55713
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55726
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|marc.glisse at ens dot fr |glisse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55726
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-22 08:57:14
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
templatetypename Float
inline
Float atan(Float t) {
constexpr float PIO4F = 0.7853981633974483096f;
constexpr Float zero = {0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55796
Bug #: 55796
Summary: Comparison with a negated number vs sum
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55803
Bug #: 55803
Summary: SSE2 double negation less efficient than explicit xor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55803
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-24 18:37:47
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
movsd reads 64bit value from memory, but xorps reads 128bit value.
True. If the size of the memory read is more important
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55812
Bug #: 55812
Summary: Unnecessary TLS accesses
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55812
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-26 15:43:50
UTC ---
More precisely, the following seems equivalent to me and gets back all the
performance, so it would be good if gcc could turn the original code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55812
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-27 09:38:15
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I think Jason had proposed an attribute for these function calls but it was
rejected IIRC.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55832
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-01 03:15:46
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
0x6fa26f fold_binary_loc(unsigned int, tree_code, tree_node*, tree_node*,
tree_node*)
../../gcc/fold-const.c:13522
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55842
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-01 18:30:52
UTC ---
template class=void struct number {
number() noexcept(noexcept(0)) { }
};
const int z=__has_nothrow_constructor(number);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55843
Bug #: 55843
Summary: ICE after exceeding template instantiation depth
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55832
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-03 08:56:47
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
I've slightly adjusted the testcase, so that it at least doesn't violate
strict
aliasing, unfortunately without
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55860
Bug #: 55860
Summary: Turn segmented iteration into nested loops
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50177
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-03 20:06:57
UTC ---
Author: glisse
Date: Thu Jan 3 20:06:49 2013
New Revision: 194868
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194868
Log:
2013-01-03 Marc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50167
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-03 20:06:56
UTC ---
Author: glisse
Date: Thu Jan 3 20:06:49 2013
New Revision: 194868
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194868
Log:
2013-01-03 Marc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50167
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50177
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55894
Bug #: 55894
Summary: No constant propagation in Intel intrinsics
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55894
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-07 13:48:17
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Usually target built-in folders are missing (targetm.fold_builtin).
That's one possibility. But I was wondering (and almost
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55894
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-07 20:17:15
UTC ---
Two more versions:
__m128d f(){
union { long long t[2]; __m128d d; } a
= {{ 0x7fff, 0x7fff }};
return a.d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55760
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55912
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55916
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32927
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-10 13:08:43
UTC ---
This has caused quite a bit of confusion lately with people installing ISL
instead of PPL for gcc-4.7.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55941
Bug #: 55941
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Strange copy of double (in struct) to
stack
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55950
Bug #: 55950
Summary: Invalid sqrt constant propagation with -frounding-mode
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55953
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-12 11:16:01
UTC ---
See this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg00336.html
(the thread continues in earlier and later months)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55955
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19820
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19820
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55967
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-15 16:38:36
UTC ---
Note that clang has -fsanitize=shift which produces a runtime message every
time a is executed with an out of bounds argument.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55993
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-15 19:34:17
UTC ---
struct A {};
struct B:A {};
struct C:A {};
struct D:B,C {};
constexpr D d;
constexpr const C e=d; // OK
constexpr auto f=static_castconst C(d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55993
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-15 19:38:46
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
e.cc:9:41: error: the value of 'd' is not usable in a constant expression
constexpr auto g=static_castconst B(d); // FAIL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55043
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56027
Bug #: 56027
Summary: ldmxcsr permuted with asm
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56027
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18 11:14:53
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I think you want a pass-thru:
#define opaque(x) __asm volatile (# x : =g (x) : 0 (x))
(opaque returns a value in my
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56027
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18 12:08:52
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I am mostly wondering what guarantees I have there won't be re-ordering.
*mxcsr
are unspec_volatile and thus can commute
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56027
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56051
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56051
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-20 18:09:40
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Untested fix. As the testcase shows, also a widening conversion can be a
problem, if it extends from signed integral type
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56051
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-20 20:17:31
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Yeah, I'm afraid assuming you never do 1 31 is going to break simply way
too
much code in the wild.
I noticed that clang
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56077
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-22 23:13:44
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I thought I fixed this already via PR54494
Did you check? It looks like I can reproduce the issue with trunk from last
week
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56085
Bug #: 56085
Summary: Unsafe negation in C++03 pow(complex,int)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56083
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56084
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-23 17:17:53
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Of course, the color output makes much easier to spot the note:.
Er, not here, bold black (the color they chose for note
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56103
Bug #: 56103
Summary: Overwrite classes on destruction for debug
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56106
Bug #: 56106
Summary: complex pow improvements
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56111
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56111
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56111
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-26 11:35:52
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Ok, I understand. Looks like, however, we are back to my original observation
in PR54112 that in C++03 mode we have less
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56118
Bug #: 56118
Summary: No constant propagation in vector field assignment
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56118
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-26 17:57:13
UTC ---
Note that the case I am most interested in is actually when r is not
initialized:
__m128d r;
gimple_assign real_cst, BIT_FIELD_REF r, 64, 0, 1.0e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56120
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-27 09:56:12
UTC ---
I see it with 4.7, but not with trunk, it may already be fixed there.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56125
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56125
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-O2 -ffast-math generates |[4.7/4.8
1 - 100 of 2560 matches
Mail list logo
