https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96528
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97228
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97012
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97405
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> OK, looks like the code expects
>
> POLY_INT_CST [16, 16] /[ex] 16
>
> to be constant folded - looks like poly_int_binop doesn't handle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 96757, which changed state.
Bug 96757 Summary: aarch64：ICE during GIMPLE pass: vect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96757
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96757
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97497
--- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
I think the problem is a disconnect between compute_transp
and the code in gcse.c itself. compute_transp considers %r12
to be transparent in all blocks despite the partial clobbers.
But
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97497
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96789
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97127
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96528
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97228
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97497
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97457
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97588
Bug ID: 97588
Summary: Overzealous SRA of boolean bitfields
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97497
--- Comment #7 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Andreas Krebbel from comment #6)
> Alternatively I could also mark r12 as preserved across function calls for
> -fpic in the backend. In fact all the bits we care about are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96342
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to yangyang from comment #3)
> The work is mainly composed of three parts: the generating of SVE
> functions for "omp declare simd" in pass_omp_simd_clone, the supporting of
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96879
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96342
--- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Comment on attachment 49413
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49413
part1-patch
Thanks for the summary and patches, and sorry for the delayed reply.
Taking part1-patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96342
--- Comment #7 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Comment on attachment 49414
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49414
part2-patch
Nice :-)
For the constant_multiple_p calls that calculate a vector multiple,
it might be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98214
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98302
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] Wrong |[9 Regression] Wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94994
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95401
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98550
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> I guess it should be a !multiple_p (group_size, nunits) check instead?
Sounds plausible :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97144
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89057
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] AArch64 |[8/9 Regression] AArch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98371
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98526
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Created attachment 49937 [details]
> patch
>
> Sth like this. But I'm somewhat confused about the partial vector code in
> the
> "else" branch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97012
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95361
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98542
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #3)
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2021, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98542
> >
> > --- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22326
--- Comment #16 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
> 2) mad2.c
>
> float foo (double x, float y, float z)
> {
>return ( y * fabs (x) + z );
> }
>
>
> mad2.c.098t.cunrolli:
>
> foo (double x, float y, float z)
> {
> double _1;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98037
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98037
Bug ID: 98037
Summary: ICE in dse.c:find_shift_sequence for large non-integer
modes
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22326
--- Comment #12 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #11)
> The larger expressions should be subject to a propagation pass and not
> arbitrarily complex static pattern matching. Maybe backprop is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98119
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-12-03
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98018
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
--- Comment #10 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Perhaps some of those checks on the other side are redundant and could be
> turned e.g. into gcc_checking_assert of gcc_assert, I bet if the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97960
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97951
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92294
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95396
--- Comment #10 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Looks like this might have gone latent on trunk. First thought
was that it might be g:7b4ea2827d2003c8ffc76cd478f8974360cbd78f,
but it seems not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97092
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Andrea Corallo from comment #3)
> Created attachment 49710 [details]
> PR97092.patch
>
> What is going on is that in 'update_costs_from_allocno' we try to
> identify the smallest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97092
--- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Andrea Corallo from comment #5)
> "rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs"
> writes:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97092
&g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
--- Comment #14 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #10)
> > If we can't assert, I guess the rule is that we need to extend
> > whenever we're
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95396
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98221
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> But all GIMPLE operates on "GIMPLE lane order" so this is a defect in how
> the backend handles those tree codes at expansion time?
I can never
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98211
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Hmm, OK, so besides the incomplete bool pattern matching the issue seems to
> be that while we reject the problematic conversion in
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95396
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] GCC |[8/9/10 Regression] GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97904
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98037
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97457
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98347
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-12-17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98347
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Bah, stupid thinko: using regno_raw_mode[regno] instead of
GET_MODE (regno_reg_rtx[regno]) for general registers :-(
Testing a fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98347
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98371
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-12-18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98371
Bug ID: 98371
Summary: [10/11 Regression] gcc.dg/torture/pr69719.c fails for
fixed-length 128-bit SVE
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98403
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98314
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97693
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-11-16
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97693
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97904
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|richard.sandiford at arm dot com |rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97513
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96377
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97693
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97314
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97711
Bug ID: 97711
Summary: Failure to optimise "x & 1 ? x - 1 : x" to "x & -2"
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97269
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95401
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97400
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97457
--- Comment #7 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
*** Bug 97400 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98214
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98214
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
*** Bug 98248 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98302
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98248
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98470
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97144
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97144
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89057
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94994
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97850
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97693
--- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
*** Bug 97850 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98526
Bug ID: 98526
Summary: [11 Regression] Double-counting of reduction cost
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97269
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98371
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] |[10 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95401
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] GCC |[10 Regression] GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98403
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97144
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] SVE: ICE |[10 Regression] SVE: ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84964
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98136
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98542
Bug ID: 98542
Summary: Redundant loads in vectorised loop
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98560
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98542
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> What do you mean with "twice"? We seem to do interleaving here (on x86_64)
> but since 'v' and 'i' have different types they do not belong to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98560
Bug ID: 98560
Summary: [11 Regression] gimple-isel ICE with folded condition
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98602
Bug ID: 98602
Summary: Failure to optimise vector “x > -100 ? x : -100” to
MAX_EXPR
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98560
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98535
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98730
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot
1 - 100 of 616 matches
Mail list logo
