https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114569
Bug ID: 114569
Summary: GCC accepts forming pointer to function type which is
ref qualified
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114568
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114568
--- Comment #2 from Christophe Lyon ---
I think the last -march option overrides the previous one(s).
I'd say the test should use an effective-target which checks that linking is
actually OK rather than just a compile OK test. Not sure if an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114533
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8455d6f6cd43b7b143ab9ee19437452fceba9cc9
commit r14-9769-g8455d6f6cd43b7b143ab9ee19437452fceba9cc9
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113765
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114476
--- Comment #8 from Robin Dapp ---
I tried some things (for the related bug without -fwrapv) then got busy with
some other things. I'm going to have another look later this week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54254
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> *** Bug 56755 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
symbol from this one was _GLOBAL__sub_I__ZN4AMOS12ContigEdge_t5NCODEE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114551
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113956
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114115
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cab32bacaea268ec062b1fb4fc662d90c9d1cfce
commit r14-9775-gcab32bacaea268ec062b1fb4fc662d90c9d1cfce
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Mon Feb 26
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111632
--- Comment #25 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e95ab9e60ce1d9aa7751d79291133fd5af9209d7
commit r13-8572-ge95ab9e60ce1d9aa7751d79291133fd5af9209d7
Author:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114574
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
reducing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114574
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Reduced:
```
struct X509_algor_st sk_X509_ALGOR_copyfunc(const struct X509_algor_st *);
struct X509_algor_st {
} PKCS8_pkey_get0(const struct X509_algor_st **) {
}
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111966
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114115
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Fixed for GCC 14 so far
It is simple patch, so backporting is OK after a week in mainline.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111632
--- Comment #26 from Iain Sandoe ---
NOTE: I adjusted the PR lines in the commit header so that the commits get
reflected on the PR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114537
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114569
--- Comment #2 from Jason Liam ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> So the code should compile.
But https://timsong-cpp.github.io/cppwp/n4950/dcl.ptr#4.sentence-2 says:
> [Note 1: [...] Forming a function pointer type is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71482
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
ith-build-config='bootstrap-O3
bootstrap-lto'
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 14.0.1 20240403 (experimental)
8455d6f6cd43b7b143ab9ee19437452fceba9cc9 (Gentoo 14.0. p, commit
7bbfb01a32b73842f8908de028703510a0e12057)
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114485
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114555
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114115
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||14.0
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
Fixed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114515
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113867
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114552
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14 Regression] wrong|[13 Regression] wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111632
--- Comment #24 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:68057560ff1fc0fb2df38c2f9627a20c9a8da5c5
commit r13-8571-g68057560ff1fc0fb2df38c2f9627a20c9a8da5c5
Author:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114575
Bug ID: 114575
Summary: [14 Regression] SVE addressing modes broken since
g:839bc42772ba7af66af3bd16efed4a69511312ae
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112303
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54254
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> *** Bug 90039 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Symbol for this one was _GLOBAL__sub_I__Z11print_tracev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114568
--- Comment #5 from Maxim Kuvyrkov ---
Looking at this problem more, I think the issue is due to ARM target trying
hard to avoid UNSUPPORTED tests, instead of embracing them.
For the vectorization NEON check we have ...
===
proc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114573
--- Comment #2 from Pierre Ossman ---
Indeed. It is part of an effort to have a more modern C++ style in TigerVNC.
One item was preferring nullptr over NULL, and this issue became an obstacle
there.
Right now, we did a #pragma, but if there is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114574
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Summary|[14 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59518
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114571
--- Comment #3 from Pierre Ossman ---
And another odd case; gcc 5 complains about this:
> const char *a;
> a = NULL;
but not:
> const char *a = NULL;
gcc 13 complains about neither, and clang about both.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114569
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112397
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ae11f0154116f4e5fa8769b1ea1600b1b1c22958
commit r13-8577-gae11f0154116f4e5fa8769b1ea1600b1b1c22958
Author: Iain Sandoe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112297
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:44514fde12e2a8f75fca88fdd6ff7a0e678ac966
commit r13-8573-g44514fde12e2a8f75fca88fdd6ff7a0e678ac966
Author:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114552
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:03039744f368a24a452e4ea8d946e9c2cedaf1aa
commit r14-9768-g03039744f368a24a452e4ea8d946e9c2cedaf1aa
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114571
Bug ID: 114571
Summary: -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant does not complain
about NULL
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113682
--- Comment #9 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> This might be the path splitting running on the gimple level causing issues
> too; see PR 112402 .
Ah that's a good shout. It looks like Richi already
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114573
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114573
Bug ID: 114573
Summary: -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant complains on enum with
explicit cast
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114572
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114555
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 57860
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57860=edit
another testcase, failing with -O -fno-tree-forwprop
Compiler output:
$ x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -O -fno-tree-forwprop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114563
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, I'd say for the sake of avoiding virtual memory fragmentation free_unit
should be equal to GGC_QUIRE_SIZE. But we should possibly merge adjacent
entries we don't free to power-of-two chunks and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111966
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b2460d621efe740bd95ad41afef6d806ec1bd9c7
commit r14-9770-gb2460d621efe740bd95ad41afef6d806ec1bd9c7
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #76 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
It's because the sanitizer runtime was copied from LLVM to GCC. I will post a
patch removing the unsupported MSan and DFSan from the error message.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114571
--- Comment #2 from Pierre Ossman ---
Found another case that neither gcc 5, gcc 13, nor clang complain about for
some odd reason:
> assert(thing == NULL);
All three complain about:
> assert(thing == 0);
Not sure what's going on here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114572
Bug ID: 114572
Summary: [OpenMP] "internal compiler error: in assign_temp"
with assignment operator and lastprivate clause
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114568
--- Comment #4 from Christophe Lyon ---
I'm wondering whether you missed check_effective_target_arm_arch_FUNC_link and
friends?
Maybe check_effective_target_arm_arch_v7a_neon_link would work here, but it
does not use the exact same flags.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114570
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
--- Comment #17 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e7b7188b1cf8c174f0e890d4ac279ff480b51043
commit r14-9767-ge7b7188b1cf8c174f0e890d4ac279ff480b51043
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114557
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e7b7188b1cf8c174f0e890d4ac279ff480b51043
commit r14-9767-ge7b7188b1cf8c174f0e890d4ac279ff480b51043
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114570
Bug ID: 114570
Summary: GCC doesn't perform good loop invariant code motion
for very long vector operations.
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114568
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114563
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114568
--- Comment #3 from Maxim Kuvyrkov ---
Changing from compile-only to link test is as simple as changing "object" to
"executable" in
[check_no_compiler_messages_nocache arm_neon_ok object ...]
.
However, ... this pattern of checking for ARM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, clang is quite quick with -O0 (8s, 1GB ram) but with -O1 uses 18GB ram and
8 minutes compile-time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114563
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 57856
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57856=edit
quick skip-list patch
Before:
> /usr/bin/time ./cc1plus -quiet -o /dev/null /tmp/a-test-poly.ii -O
173.29user
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114563
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 57858
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57858=edit
better release_pages
Ah, and it's not so much fragmentation but large free_unit (1MB) that's hard
to get to. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114401
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:47ebdbe5bf71d9eb260359b6aceb5cb071d97acd
commit r13-8570-g47ebdbe5bf71d9eb260359b6aceb5cb071d97acd
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113841
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:87ec5b369eed205dfe6802afaaec3986b246ade9
commit r13-8569-g87ec5b369eed205dfe6802afaaec3986b246ade9
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114367
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d8d71b19f0b1e28fd6d413a6874ec55c568865b0
commit r13-8568-gd8d71b19f0b1e28fd6d413a6874ec55c568865b0
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101523
--- Comment #53 from Richard Biener ---
So just to recap, with reverting the change and instead doing
diff --git a/gcc/combine.cc b/gcc/combine.cc
index a4479f8d836..ff25752cac4 100644
--- a/gcc/combine.cc
+++ b/gcc/combine.cc
@@ -4186,6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85919
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85919
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113412
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #5)
> The pointers to expr->symtree is NULL. This new patch catches your example.
It does, but behaves weird for some other cases. Try:
program main
complex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86303
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23872
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99426
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka ---
There's a patch pending review at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/647203.html
Until that's merged, one should be able to work around this error with a trunk
compiler by using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32775
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36512
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114576
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47048
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28141
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114526
--- Comment #20 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Kaz Kylheku from comment #19)
Needless to say I still disagree, but I interpreted your comment #17 as
suggesting this aspect of the discussion is neither necessary nor useful for
this bug,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114571
--- Comment #1 from Pierre Ossman ---
Hmm.. I found bug 77513, and r9-873. So I guess this is intentional?
This makes the warning somewhat pointless. We want to make sure developers
standardise on nullptr, both for style and since the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104606
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7f65d8267fbfd19cf21a3dc71d27e989e75044a3
commit r14-9771-g7f65d8267fbfd19cf21a3dc71d27e989e75044a3
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114577
Bug ID: 114577
Summary: Inefficient codegen for SVE/NEON bridge
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85236
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
clang does not implement this intrinsics either and there is no issue filed
there about it either (I am kinda of shocked).
Note ICX (which is the new ICC but with using clang/LLVM) does and it calls
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81358
--- Comment #15 from Adrian Bunk ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #11)
> RFC draft patch – also to solve an offload problem with atomic and nvptx
> libgomp:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-October/556297.html
> See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101865
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|willschm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29231
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86027
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84017
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||subscribe at teskor dot de
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85236
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/docs/intrinsics-guide/index.html#!=undefined=SVML=_mm256_atan2_ps_expand=393
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93672
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
So maybe:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/src/c++98/istream.cc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/src/c++98/istream.cc
@@ -112,7 +112,10 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
basic_istream::
ignore(streamsize __n, int_type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86466
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34629
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114576
--- Comment #4 from Thiago Macieira ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> vaesenc etc. instructions can be used even if just -maes -mavx, not just
> -mvaes -mavx512vl.
Correct, that's just VEX-prefixed AESNI instructions.
VAES
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85620
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81652
Bug 81652 depends on bug 85620, which changed state.
Bug 85620 Summary: Missing ENDBR after swapcontext
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85620
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86466
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 57870
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57870=edit
testcase
Please next time attach or place the testcase inline instead of just linking to
godbolt, we were just lucky
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40988
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40988
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
One more note the Linux kernel sources has been corrected already.
They do now:
asm volatile(__ASM_SIZE(btr) " %2,%1"
CC_SET(c)
: CC_OUT(c) (oldbit)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28017
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40771
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
AARCH64 vectorization looks decent too:
```
dup v31.8h, w0
adrpx2, .LC0
adrpx0, .LC1
adrpx1, .LANCHOR0
ldr q30, [x2, #:lo12:.LC0]
ldr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #31 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #29)
> Looking back at this one, I (In reply to Wilco from comment #8)
> > Here is a much simpler example:
> >
> > void f (int *p, int y)
> > {
> > int a = y & 14;
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114510
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
---
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
