https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92105
Jeremy R. changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||llvm at rifkin dot dev
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101213
Bug ID: 101213
Summary: Improve support for decltype(std)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100829
Bug ID: 100829
Summary: ICE with type that can't be determined
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101300
Bug ID: 101300
Summary: -fsanitize=undefined suppresses -Wuninitialized
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101213
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy R. ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> This is just how GCC recovers from a bad parse, so that it can attempt to
> continue and give diagnostics for the rest of the code. An invalid type in
> certain
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102232
Bug ID: 102232
Summary: Missed arithmetic fold
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102232
--- Comment #1 from Jeremy R. ---
Correction on first line: *GCC optimizes bar into tgt here but not foo.
Pardon my sloppy copy-paste from my bug report over on LLVM's bugzilla!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101701
--- Comment #4 from Jeremy R. ---
I see with gcc x86_64 it does get the fold correct if another term (val == 5)
is added to the if-else chain: https://godbolt.org/z/TE15Wf1bo.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101701
Bug ID: 101701
Summary: GCC optimization and code generation for if-else
chains vs ternary chains vs a switch
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101754
Bug ID: 101754
Summary: Missed fold for a/b*b
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101790
Bug ID: 101790
Summary: ICE on invalid regression in trunk: tree check:
expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101821
Bug ID: 101821
Summary: Redundant xor eax eax
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101822
--- Comment #1 from Jeremy R. ---
Never mind, 101821 was invalid and the initial xor eax eax is by design (still
wondering whether this applies to new CPUs though). There is still a
discrepancy between this code and the __builtin_popcount code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101821
--- Comment #9 from Jeremy R. ---
Thank you for the resources and for your insight, it's much appreciated.
Is there interest in updating the intentional false-dependency logic to not
fire for architectures newer than cannonlake?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101821
--- Comment #7 from Jeremy R. ---
Does the false dependency still apply to modern CPUs?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101821
--- Comment #1 from Jeremy R. ---
This happens with __builtin_popcount as well, not just std::popcount. This
appears to have started in GCC 4.9.2. https://godbolt.org/z/4dGWvT5zr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101821
--- Comment #6 from Jeremy R. ---
Ah thank you @Andrew Pinski @Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101822
Bug ID: 101822
Summary: Codegen bug for popcount
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101821
Jeremy R. changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Redundant xor eax eax |Redundant xor eax eax
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101822
--- Comment #3 from Jeremy R. ---
Interestingly it's optimized correctly on -Os
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103559
Bug ID: 103559
Summary: Can't optimize away < 0 check on sqrt
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103765
Bug ID: 103765
Summary: Missed arithmetic simplification for multiplication +
division
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103072
Bug ID: 103072
Summary: Folding common switch code
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103072
--- Comment #3 from Jeremy R. ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> So maybe the switchconv pass could be
> improved not to do just the linear etc. expression handling, but also
> consider code sequences that are the same except for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111242
Bug ID: 111242
Summary: Out of bounds pointer arithmetic not caught in
constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86130
--- Comment #21 from Jeremy R. ---
Another option might be just do nothing and don't set the badbit, just pretend
it's an empty string. This shouldn't break existing programs and would at least
be something a programmer could more easily track
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86130
--- Comment #20 from Jeremy R. ---
Silently ruining the behavior of the rest of a program and leaving the
programmer to pull their hair out over what on earth is happening seems very
un-ideal behavior.
This is a very easy mistake to make and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111729
Bug ID: 111729
Summary: Design considerations for operator<<(basic_ostream&,
const charT*)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111729
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy R. ---
Thank you for the quick response
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105734
--- Comment #1 from Jeremy R. ---
More minimal: https://godbolt.org/z/WcGab4W8T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105734
Bug ID: 105734
Summary: Regression: Incorrect "error: invalid use of 'auto'"
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105734
--- Comment #9 from Jeremy R. ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jeremy R. from comment #1)
> > More minimal: https://godbolt.org/z/WcGab4W8T
>
> The https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs very clearly says to provide the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105734
--- Comment #10 from Jeremy R. ---
One workaround in the general case is
decltype(ns::expression_decomposer(ns::expression_decomposer{} << expr)) =
libassert_decomposer = ns::expression_decomposer(ns::expression_decomposer{} <<
expr);
But this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105734
--- Comment #14 from Jeremy R. ---
Thank you for the quick patch :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105811
Bug ID: 105811
Summary: Diagnostics for template class member call with
missing template parameters can be improved
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106727
Bug ID: 106727
Summary: Missed fold / canonicalization for checking if a
number is a power of 2
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107178
Bug ID: 107178
Summary: Diagnosis for colon vs semi-colon in a member function
declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107178
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy R. ---
The easy solution is to mention both the bitfield and "hey maybe you meant to
use a ;"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109044
Bug ID: 109044
Summary: Missed fold for (n - 1) / 2 when n is odd
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103559
--- Comment #6 from Jeremy R. ---
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110203
Bug ID: 110203
Summary: Sum should optimize to closed form
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110203
--- Comment #4 from Jeremy R. ---
Thanks for tracking down the duplicates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110203
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy R. ---
I wasn't able to get this to work with unsigned either
https://godbolt.org/z/bGcW7ebjd but maybe there's some other way to trigger
this optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113392
Bug ID: 113392
Summary: Missed fold of loading 8 consecutive bytes leading to
a missed byteswap optimization
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115201
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy R. ---
Does recursive inlining here interfere with TCO, or is GCC just not able to TCO
in this case?
I can understand why some bounded recursive inlining may be desirable, however
in this case it seems very not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115201
Bug ID: 115201
Summary: Recursive binary search is incorrectly inlined
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
46 matches
Mail list logo
