[Bug c/67668] New: erroneous type argument for unary operator one's complement

[Bug c/67668] New: erroneous type argument for unary operator one's complement

[ka_bena at yahoo dot fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67668

            Bug ID: 67668
           Summary: erroneous type argument for unary operator one's
                    complement
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.8.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: ka_bena at yahoo dot fr
  Target Milestone: ---

int main(void)
{ 
  ~( 1. + 0.i ) ; 
  ~(1.)           ; 
  return 0      ;
}

/* Results:: 
   main_cmp1_err.c:4:3: attention : statement with no effect [-Wunused-value]
      ~( 1. + 0.i ) ; 
      ^
   main_cmp1_err.c:5:3: erreur: type d'argument erroné pour un complément de
bit
      ~(1.)           ; 
      ^
   Comment:: ( 1. + 0.i ) must be an erroneous type argument for ~ . 

   Microsoft Windows XP Profesional version2002 Service Pack 3.
   Gcc 4.8.0 win32 mingw32  
*/
>From gcc-bugs-return-497725-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Mon Sep 21 12:29:29 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-497725-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 32157 invoked by alias); 21 Sep 2015 12:29:29 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 32097 invoked by uid 48); 21 Sep 2015 12:29:25 -0000
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/67668] erroneous type argument for unary operator one's complement
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 12:29:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-67668-4-JmGyKuDRdY@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-67668-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-67668-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-09/txt/msg01703.txt.bz2
Content-length: 181

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idg668

--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
*** Bug 67667 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c/67668] erroneous type argument for unary operator one's complement

[glisse at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67668

--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-5.2.0/gcc/Complex.html
-Wpedantic

What is your question exactly?

[Bug c/67668] erroneous type argument for unary operator one's complement

[ka_bena at yahoo dot fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67668

--- Comment #4 from BENAÏSSA <ka_bena at yahoo dot fr> ---
  Thank you for your quick and clear reply .
  Note:
   I think that using the same symbol operator for doing two different things
   can be a potential source of blind errors.
   I confirm that this is only a personnal point of view.
          A.Benaïssa



     Le Lundi 21 septembre 2015 15h41, manu at gcc dot gnu.org
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> a écrit :


 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67668

Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

          What    |Removed                    |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Status|UNCONFIRMED                |RESOLVED
                CC|                            |manu at gcc dot gnu.org
        Resolution|---                        |INVALID

--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Marc is right:

The operator ‘~’ performs complex conjugation when used on a value with a
complex type. This is a GNU extension; for values of floating type, you should
use the ISO C99 functions conjf, conj and conjl, declared in <complex.h> and
also provided as built-in functions by GCC. 

test.c:3:3: warning: ISO C does not support ‘~’ for complex conjugation
[-Wpedantic]
  ~( 1. + 0.i ) ; 
  ^
>From gcc-bugs-return-497820-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Tue Sep 22 17:04:08 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-497820-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 64005 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2015 17:04:08 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 63971 invoked by uid 55); 22 Sep 2015 17:04:04 -0000
From: "ka_bena at yahoo dot fr" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/67667] erroneous type argument for unary operator one's complement
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:04:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ka_bena at yahoo dot fr
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: DUPLICATE
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-67667-4-7L3j90HYly@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-67667-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-67667-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-09/txt/msg01798.txt.bz2
Content-length: 1317

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67667

--- Comment #2 from BENAÏSSA <ka_bena at yahoo dot fr> ---
  Thank you for your quick and clear reply .
  Note:
   I think that using the same symbol operato as GNU extension for doing two
different things
   can be a potential source of blind errors .
   I confirm that this is only a personnal point of view.
          A.Benaïssa



     Le Lundi 21 septembre 2015 13h29, redi at gcc dot gnu.org
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> a écrit :


 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67667

Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

          What    |Removed                    |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Status|UNCONFIRMED                |RESOLVED
        Resolution|---                        |DUPLICATE

--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 67668 ***
>From gcc-bugs-return-497821-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Tue Sep 22 17:05:38 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-497821-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 65187 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2015 17:05:37 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 65154 invoked by uid 48); 22 Sep 2015 17:05:34 -0000
From: "alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/67682] New: Missed vectorization: (another) straight-line memcpy/memset not vectorized when equivalent loop is
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:05:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: new
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 6.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter target_milestone cf_gcctarget
Message-ID: <bug-67682-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-09/txt/msg01799.txt.bz2
Content-length: 2373

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idg682

            Bug ID: 67682
           Summary: Missed vectorization: (another) straight-line
                    memcpy/memset not vectorized when equivalent loop is
           Product: gcc
           Version: 6.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: tree-optimization
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---
            Target: aarch64

This code:

void
test (int*__restrict a, int*__restrict b)
{
    a[0] = b[0];
    a[1] = b[1];
    a[2] = b[2];
    a[3] = b[3];
    a[4] = 0;
    a[5] = 0;
    a[6] = 0;
    a[7] = 0;
}

is not vectorized; -fdump-tree-slp-details reveals

test.c:4:13: note: Build SLP failed: different operation in stmt MEM[(int
*)a_4(
D) + 28B] = 0;
test.c:4:13: note: original stmt *a_4(D) = _3;
test.c:4:13: note: === vect_slp_analyze_data_ref_dependences ==test.c:4:13: note: === vect_slp_analyze_operations ==test.c:4:13: note: not vectorized: bad operation in basic block.
test.c:4:13: note: ***** Re-trying analysis with vector size 8
...
test.c:4:13: note: Build SLP failed: different operation in stmt MEM[(int
*)a_4(D) + 28B] = 0;
test.c:4:13: note: original stmt *a_4(D) = _3;
test.c:4:13: note: === vect_slp_analyze_data_ref_dependences ==test.c:4:13: note: === vect_slp_analyze_operations ==test.c:4:13: note: not vectorized: bad operation in basic block.

(the failure with vector size 8 is expected, but vector size 4 should succeed)

Output is:
test:
        ldp     w4, w3, [x1]
        ldp     w2, w1, [x1, 8]
        stp     w4, w3, [x0]
        stp     w2, w1, [x0, 8]
        stp     wzr, wzr, [x0, 16]
        stp     wzr, wzr, [x0, 24]
        ret

Curiously, a similar code but writing elements a[0..3] and a[5..8] (missing out
a[4]) is SLP'd, producing superior:

test:
        ldr     q0, [x1]
        movi    v1.4s, 0
        str     q1, [x0, 20]
        str     q0, [x0]
        ret

And similarly for (equivalent to the first):

void
test (int*__restrict a, int*__restrict b)
{
  for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++)
    a[i] = b[i];
  for (int i = 4; i < 8; i++)
    a[i] = 0;
}

producing:

test:
        movi    v0.4s, 0
        ldp     x2, x3, [x1]
        stp     x2, x3, [x0]
        str     q0, [x0, 16]
        ret