https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100504
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 100528 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100528
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100542
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100501
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 100542 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100561
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is invalid because you wrote:
3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923
And not:
3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923_16
The first is a real type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100585
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100246
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bug-reports.delphin@laposte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100604
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|riscv,mips |riscv-*-*,mips64r6-*-*
Keywor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100609
Bug ID: 100609
Summary: bool - 1 is not simplified to -a
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100609
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25290
Bug 25290 depends on bug 100609, which changed state.
Bug 100609 Summary: bool - 1 is not simplified to -a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100609
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100614
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |web
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100614
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25290
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
I Have a new patch though I need to remove some code still.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100624
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||98195
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100576
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|tree-ssa|12.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100627
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is a target issue dealing with how uint64_t ->float/double conversions are
done.
On aarch64 for cvt_f64_std we get good code at -O3:
cvt_f64_std(std::array&, std::array const&):
ldp q7, q6,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96928
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note while moving this optimization to match-and-simplify I noticed that the
gimple produced is:
(~a) ^ b
But this get changed around to:
~(a ^ b)
By PRE latter on.
I only noticed this because the testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100629
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The difference is
PatternDriver::TemplateEnum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100629
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> The difference is
> PatternDriver::TemplateEnum vs
> PatternDriver::TemplateEnum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100629
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> The difference is
> PatternDriver::TemplateEnum vs
> PatternDriver::TemplateEnum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100629
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100663
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100653
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.1.0, 11.1.0, 12.0, 7.3.0
Ever co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100671
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is a dup of bug 99791.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100688
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am curious what is the use case here?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100688
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, now I am curious why you are using the jit framework rather than doing a
normal GCC front-end; like was done for the other rust gcc front-end
https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100691
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100379
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||grgoffe at yahoo dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100706
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC does not generate the PLTs directly normally. It is the linker.
Does using BFD ld instead of gold fix the issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100697
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100677
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||95227
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100677
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||93126
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100638
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100726
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |target
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100728
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
"could not read lto-wrapper output"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100733
Bug ID: 100733
Summary: -fcompare-debug failure for pr85213.c at -O1
-fdisable-tree-phiopt2
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-debu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100733
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note in older versions of GCC (8.x), disabling phiopt1 is needed instead of
phiopt2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100697
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Missing fwprop for argument |Scheduler before RA causes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100728
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100726
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66022
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85605
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89263
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sergey.ignatchenko at ithare
dot c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89263
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||25290
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22568
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15)
> The expr.c patch yes. The tree-ssa-phiopt.c patch, no. Tree-ssa-phiopt.c
> needs more code rework because of the new infrastructures so I have not
> gotten ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91540
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Currently on the trunk we get:
andl%edi, %esi
movl$43, %eax
movzbl %sil, %esi
subl%esi, %eax
Which is close.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55869
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97690
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pawel_sikora at zoho dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58195
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||25290
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97499
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100734
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|bootstrap |target
Summary|/test/gnu/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100734
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
/* The character codes corresponding to all the access modes. */
static constexpr char mode_chars[5] = { '-', 'r', 'w', 'x', '^' };
Is this after building stage 1 or after building stage 2 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100738
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61238
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81612
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79760
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vctrex at mailfence dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81955
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78889
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84187
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84862
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90217
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89694
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88360
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100734
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100734
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> > Possibly a dup of PR100727?
>
> I think it is unrelated.
>
> The problem is the fix for PR 100619, sets the at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100773
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ice in operator[], at |[12 Regression] ice in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100781
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Emitted binary code changes |[12 Regression] Emitted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100781
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
apinski@xeond:~/src/upstream-gcc/gcc/objdir/stage1-gcc$ ./xgcc -B.
-fcompare-debug -O2 t.c
xgcc: error: t.c: ‘-fcompare-debug’ failure (length)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100781
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
At least I thought this is related to PR 100774 but this was introduced after
the patch which introduced that one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100781
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
The first major difference shows up in evrp.
With debugging info turned on we get:
Merging blocks 4 and 6
Merging blocks 5 and 7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100771
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |12.0
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100785
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.5
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100786
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|tree-ssa|12.0
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100783
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|ICE: at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100787
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|bootstrap |middle-end
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100773
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #4)
> Seems bad at b6bdd7a4cb41ee05, so the current range is
> 10b286ce335cca13..b6bdd7a4cb41ee05, or about 6 revisions.
It is most likely b6bdd7a4cb41ee05 which in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100798
Bug ID: 100798
Summary: a?~t:t and (-(!!a))^t don't produce the same assembly
code
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100804
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100653
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||george.thopas at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61592
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at gyoo dot com
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77443
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80272
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61592
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkropki at yahoo dot co.uk
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100807
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61592
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 100807 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100811
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also on say PowerPC, not omitting the frame pointer gives no benifit whats so
ever really with respect to backtracing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100820
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build, compile-time-hog
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100817
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
/* Theoretically possible, but *highly* unlikely. */
gcc_checking_assert (num_iterations < 500);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28763
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45326
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67179
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94263
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91810
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87695
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lpsullivan at wpi dot edu
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90431
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90222
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90223
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90222
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 90223 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88673
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
401 - 500 of 25813 matches
Mail list logo