https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111356
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
BTW it works with 13.2.0 with "ulimit -s 131072" too, so it's a stack usage
issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111356
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111315
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111319
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111252
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111323
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111315
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111365
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111365
--- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #2)
> int a, c, d, e = -1233286202, f = -1233286202;
>
> ...
>
> if (l <= 0 || + l > )
>
> I suppose this is invoking undefined behavior.
Nope, the problematic + l >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111365
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111365
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao ---
int a, c, d, e = -1233286202, f = -1233286202;
...
if (l <= 0 || + l > )
I suppose this is invoking undefined behavior.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111424
Bug ID: 111424
Summary: LoongArch: Enable vect test suite
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
--- Comment #9 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Alex Mohr from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> > A 4x slowdown isn't really acceptable IMHO. At that point, why not just use
> > -O0 instead?
>
> I've been using -O0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
--- Comment #11 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Alex Mohr from comment #10)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9)
> > I believe the only real issue is imprecise documentation: "It is a better
> > choice than -O0" has some caveats and it's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111383
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111403
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111379
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111379
--- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao ---
If CWG 2749 is accepted we should just close this as WONTFIX.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111403
Bug ID: 111403
Summary: LoongArch: Wrong code with -O -mlasx -fopenmp-simd
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111336
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111334
--- Comment #19 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #18)
> This problem has been fixed on LA664．
> I don't quite understand why this operation is still needed in !TARGET_64BIT?
It's not needed with !TARGET_64BIT. I just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111334
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111334
--- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #5)
> (In reply to chenglulu from comment #3)
> > This involves the template di3_fake:
> > (define_insn "di3_fake"
> > [(set (match_operand:DI 0 "register_operand" "=r,,")
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111334
--- Comment #9 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #7)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #5)
> > > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #3)
> > > > This involves the template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111334
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Summary|ICE is reported
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111334
--- Comment #17 from Xi Ruoyao ---
I think the proper description should be:
diff --git a/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.md
b/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.md
index 75f641b38ee..000d17b0ba6 100644
--- a/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.md
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111252
Bug ID: 111252
Summary: LoongArch: Suboptimal code for (a & ~mask) | (b &
mask) where mask is a constant with value ((1 << n) -
1) << m
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111252
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chenglulu at loongson dot cn,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111252
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111252
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Interesting:
> int test(int a, int b)
> {
> return (a & ~0x8000) | (b & 0x8000);
> }
>
> Produces better code:
> lu12i.w $r12,-2147483648>>12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111252
--- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #4)
> Hmm, this seems a separate issue. The compiler knows to optimize (a & mask)
> if mask is ((1 << a) - 1) << b iff a + b = 32 or b = 0, but not for any
I mean "32 or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111256
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111256
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao ---
If you don't have Clang, you can also reproduce the timeout with
-ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero or -ftrivial-auto-var-init=pattern (in GCC 12 or
later).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111405
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111393
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111233
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111334
--- Comment #15 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #13)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #12)
> > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #11)
> > > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #10)
> > > > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111334
--- Comment #10 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9)
> (define_insn "di3_fake"
>[(set (match_operand:DI 0 "register_operand" "=r,,")
> - (sign_extend:DI
> - (any_div:SI (match_operand:DI 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111334
--- Comment #14 from Xi Ruoyao ---
I'm trying
diff --git a/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.md
b/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.md
index 75f641b38ee..44d9b99b2f5 100644
--- a/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.md
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111334
--- Comment #12 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #11)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #10)
> > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9)
> >
> > > (define_insn "di3_fake"
> > >[(set (match_operand:DI 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111336
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Wrong code at -O2/3 since |[14 Regression] Wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112330
Bug ID: 112330
Summary: [14 Regression] LoongArch: LTO bootstrap failure with
GAS 2.41
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112330
--- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #5)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #4)
> > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #3)
> > > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1)
> > > > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112330
--- Comment #8 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #7)
> Uh, I also thought about this gcc and binutils matching issue when I
> submitted r14-4674, but I didn't think about whether this should be solved?
> How to fix it？
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112330
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Created attachment 56483
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56483=edit
The generated assembly triggering the GAS internal error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112330
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #3)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1)
> > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #0)
> >
> > > I guess the easiest solution is raising the minimal GAS requirement of
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112330
--- Comment #1 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #0)
> I guess the easiest solution is raising the minimal GAS requirement of
> bootstrapping GCC 14 on LoongArch to 2.42.
Another solution might be default to -mno-relax if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112330
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14 Regression] LoongArch: |[14 Regression] LoongArch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69549
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112330
--- Comment #11 from Xi Ruoyao ---
I cherry-picked f87cf663af71e5d78c8d647fa48562102f3b0615 for Binutils 2.41 and
get some better error message:
t.s:98064: Error: Reloc overflow
t.s:101127: Error: Reloc overflow
t.s:101453: Error: Reloc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112330
--- Comment #13 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #12)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #11)
> > I cherry-picked f87cf663af71e5d78c8d647fa48562102f3b0615 for Binutils 2.41
> > and get some better error message:
> >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112330
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|build |
Summary|[14 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112329
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109035
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364
--- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #2)
> I don't think this is correct. The requirement is "The pointer returned if
> the allocation succeeds is suitably aligned so that it may be assigned to a
> pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364
--- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #4)
> Interesting. But independently of alignment, the description of calloc makes
> it clear that it allocates an array of nmemb objects of size x. So in any
> case I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109035
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111315
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112299
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112299
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106627
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112286
--- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao ---
FWIW one nice aspect of gccgo is we don't need a pre-installed Go binary to
build it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112286
--- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #4)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #2)
> > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #1)
> > > (In reply to Robin Lee from comment #0)
> > > > Follow-up from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112286
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #1)
> (In reply to Robin Lee from comment #0)
> > Follow-up from https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108682#c2
> >
> > libgo runtime needs an update.
> > gccgo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112286
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-10-30
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111930
--- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #1)
> We're aiming to add SME and SME2 support in GCC 14, hopefully by the end of
> the year.
Note that now we have only 2 weeks before GCC 14 stage 1 ends.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111569
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108575
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107716
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |MOVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110622
--- Comment #15 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Mathieu Malaterre from comment #14)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13)
> > (In reply to Mathieu Malaterre from comment #12)
> > > I am seeing a difference in result (log1p computation)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109967
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109967
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111646
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111646
--- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to vishwambhar.rathi from comment #4)
> I am not using any optimization flag in compiling. Where should I post about
> this bug? Thanks.
I don't know because maybe this is a Glibc issue or a QEMU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111642
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #16 from Xi Ruoyao ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110869
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110867
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |FIXED
--- Comment #12 from Xi Ruoyao ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111642
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110867
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110864
Bug 110864 depends on bug 110867, which changed state.
Bug 110867 Summary: [14 Regression] ICE in combine after
7cdd0860949c6c3232e6cff1d7ca37bb5234074c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110867
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110939
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110869
Bug 110869 depends on bug 110867, which changed state.
Bug 110867 Summary: [14 Regression] ICE in combine after
7cdd0860949c6c3232e6cff1d7ca37bb5234074c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110867
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110939
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110939
--- Comment #13 from Xi Ruoyao ---
The patch is pushed. I'm running a bootstrap and I'll close this PR after it
successes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110939
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50481
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82967
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111685
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111669
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1)
> The warning given for the reduced test case is correct because it does not
> make sense. It should be just rewritten as
I mean, the code does not make sense.
And the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111669
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111472
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
--- Comment #1 from Xi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111472
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|Wrong code at -Os on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111669
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Zeb Figura from comment #3)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1)
> > > The warning given for the reduced test case is correct because it does not
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111669
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #7 from Xi Ruoyao
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10837
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lukas.graetz@tu-darmstadt.d
1 - 100 of 691 matches
Mail list logo
