https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65464
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #21 from Alexandre Oliva ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #19)
> For some reason
> into-SSA inserts a debug stmt, creating an extra copy _5 = i_4?!
I bet the extra copy is there even without -g. _1, _3 and _5 seem to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65464
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65466
Bug ID: 65466
Summary: Unnecessary source line output for "note: each
undeclared identifier is reported only once"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65465
--- Comment #1 from Khem Raj ---
I could bisect it to this commit being the faulty one.
commit 9f27b0caacbfc21963098a6d8e305c148ac8661a
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Mar 13 06:30:04 2015 +
* ipa-icf.c (sem_function::equals_wpa): Matc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65465
Bug ID: 65465
Summary: nternal compiler error: in build2_stat
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, jens.gustedt at inria dot fr wrote:
> (Perhaps gcc interprets _Generic as you say, but even the standard committee
> doesn't agree on that interpretation, and other com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, jens.gustedt at inria dot fr wrote:
> This bugzilla really sucks. There is my second comment that I place here gone
> to the void. Obviously you did see it, since you re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65464
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is a bug in the kernel. vdso32 should be building for
little-endian PowerPC64 as there is no 32bit support currently.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #8 from Jens Gustedt ---
(Perhaps gcc interprets _Generic as you say, but even the standard committee
doesn't agree on that interpretation, and other compiler implementors don't
agree either. Nothing in the standard says that it is an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65464
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64le-linux-gnu
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #7 from Jens Gustedt ---
This bugzilla really sucks. There is my second comment that I place here gone
to the void. Obviously you did see it, since you replied to my mention of
_Generic, but now its gone.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65464
Bug ID: 65464
Summary: [4.8/4.9 Regression] disabling multilib support for
powerpc64le-linux-gnu breaks kernel builds
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59640
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59816
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59816
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Mar 18 21:30:04 2015
New Revision: 221502
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221502&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-18 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/59816
* g++.dg/cpp0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59198
--- Comment #24 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Wed Mar 18 21:18:38 2015
New Revision: 221501
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221501&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-18 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/59198
* gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59816
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
This is fixed for 5.0. I'm adding the testcase and closing the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62051
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59198
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #23 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59701
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59673
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59627
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59624
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64989
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65400
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Created attachment 35059 [details]
> gcc5-pr65400.patch
>
> Untested fix for the first issue.
patch looks good!
and a really nice test case.
one minor nit on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65463
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64736
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63366
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63731
--- Comment #31 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
Here are two suggestions to solve this issue without having to use the -a and
-tags netgo options to rebuild packages at build time. Since this is a common
problem, it seems best to provide a way t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65463
Bug ID: 65463
Summary: ICE initializing struct member with long value casted
from a pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65462
Bug ID: 65462
Summary: Use of 'go get' with gccgo is not finding dependencies
correctly
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48996
--- Comment #7 from Paul Smith ---
I haven't seen this issue in a while and don't care enough to try to reproduce
it or to have it reopened, but as far as I can see the problem was pretty
clearly in the fixincl tool that comes with GCC. I don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63657
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65439
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65439
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Mar 18 19:18:34 2015
New Revision: 221500
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221500&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR65439.
PR ipa/65439
* g++.dg/ipa/ipa-icf-4.C: Extend expect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63716
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34010
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Hi Aldy,
If the only thing failing is -m32 -mpowerpc64, that is likely another
problem. Not likely a regression either (but I don't have testresults
around going back more than a year or so; it failed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64860
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
(just to explain bit more - the main difference between static and dynamic
linking here is that dynamic linking never remove any definition and thus you
can dissolve comdat groups)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64860
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Well, the problem is that -r is the only case where we get LDPR_PREVAILING_DEF
or IRONLY and the resulting symbol may be removed from the unit later.
We would need a new LDPR_PREVAILING_DEF_FOR_NOW or something
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65380
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka ---
Ah, thanks! The patch fixed as in coment #10 is OK for mainline. We obviously
should not try to do any merging of external symbols; it is pointless. We only
want to calculate equivalences on these to merge no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65046
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Mar 18 18:08:29 2015
New Revision: 221497
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221497&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65046
* config/locale/gnu/messages_members.cc (Catalog_inf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
(_Generic does make sure to treat its controlling expression as an rvalue,
removing qualifiers including _Atomic as well as ensuring GCC's internal
representation of _Noreturn as a qualifie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65400
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 35059
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35059&action=edit
gcc5-pr65400.patch
Untested fix for the first issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
stdatomic.h uses both __auto_type and __typeof__. In the cases where
__typeof__ is used, (a) const and _Atomic (and maybe volatile) must be
removed and (b) __auto_type would not be correct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65427
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|FIXE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65427
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63491
--- Comment #12 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #11)
> Ok, I found the difference. The problem on the external gcc112 system (ie,
> the big-endian system) is that the system binutils doesn't support POWER8,
> so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65459
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm*-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #4 from Jens Gustedt ---
This is a surprising policy change that occurs a random point in time, namely
where _Atomic is introduced to the C language and in addition does that in a
very unituitive way. Why drop _Atomic, why keep the ot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13631
--- Comment #35 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Mar 18 16:17:47 2015
New Revision: 221494
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221494&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/13631
* config/locale/gnu/messages_members.cc (get_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65424
--- Comment #2 from Robert Clausecker ---
I'm looking forwards to a fix! This optimization is important for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65380
--- Comment #13 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #12)
> What's your target where you have the PR? I'm also unable to reproduce the
> issue. Even with BFD.
Build/host/target is a CentOS 6.6 x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu sy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60851
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
I have a patch in testing:
--cut here--
Index: recog.c
===
--- recog.c (revision 221482)
+++ recog.c (working copy)
@@ -2775,6 +2775,10 @
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65427
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64491
Andrew Stubbs changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64032
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Stubbs ---
Author: ams
Date: Wed Mar 18 14:27:13 2015
New Revision: 221492
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221492&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR64491
2015-03-18 Andrew Stubbs
PR middle-end/64491
Revert
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64491
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Stubbs ---
Author: ams
Date: Wed Mar 18 14:27:13 2015
New Revision: 221492
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221492&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR64491
2015-03-18 Andrew Stubbs
PR middle-end/64491
Rever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65432
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65432
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Mar 18 14:16:59 2015
New Revision: 221491
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221491&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR ipa/65432
PR ipa/65432
* cgraph.c (cgraph_node::get_create
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65451
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65450
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0, 5.0
Summary|[4.9/5 Reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65222
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65450
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 18 13:54:12 2015
New Revision: 221490
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221490&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/65450
* tree-vect-data-refs.c (vect_duplicat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65222
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 18 13:47:47 2015
New Revision: 221489
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221489&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65222
* doc/invoke.texi: Add knl as x86 -march=/-mtune=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
--- Comment #2 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35058
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35058&action=edit
__builtin_GOACC_data_end
Sorry, I thought I included this test case. Anyway, the !$acc data regions i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65450
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65398
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65337
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65243
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|2015-03-02 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65432
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #4)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> > Created attachment 35057 [details]
> > Suggested patch
> >
> > I guess the problem is caused by missing xstdu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65243
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> I can reproduce the SEGV with the same stack trace with recent trunk.
>
> Going back in time as far back as commit 8b2ddcd 7 months ago I get:
>
> lto1: interna
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65380
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #11)
> Created attachment 35050 [details]
> one.o.000i.cgraph: -fdump-ipa-cgraph for the LTO step for the unpatched GCC
> (r221482)
>
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka from c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65222
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65238
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65432
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> Created attachment 35057 [details]
> Suggested patch
>
> I guess the problem is caused by missing xstdup_for_dump wrappers.
> Can you please Markus test for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59967
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65207
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64491
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Stubbs ---
Yeah, I've not managed to come up with a better solution, so I think I'll just
revert the patch, for now. :-(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65432
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 35057
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35057&action=edit
Suggested patch
I guess the problem is caused by missing xstdup_for_dump wrappers.
Can you please Markus test fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60794
John Marino changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
The "culprit" basically refactors things and in the process screws
code-generation with sreals?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64860
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64491
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So perhaps we just can't warn for your testcase, if we can't detect it
reliably.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64715
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64600
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64491
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #34 from David Edel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28586
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #6 from David Edels
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
Bug 54791 depends on bug 33704, which changed state.
Bug 33704 Summary: AIX runs c++ constructors in incorrect order
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33704
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33704
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28586
Bug 28586 depends on bug 33704, which changed state.
Bug 33704 Summary: AIX runs c++ constructors in incorrect order
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33704
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Can you please provide a testcase? It looks like what keeps
void bar (int *);
void baz (void);
void foo (void)
{
int a[10];
bar (a);
baz ();
}
from using a sibcall doesn't work for you. Probably th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65461
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Correct link for the PR links to a different bugzilla:
https://dmz-portal.mips.com/bugz/show_bug.cgi?id=1006
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65449
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Hi Richard,
the invalid/different code for -O2 -fstrict-volatile-bitfields will be
fixed with my proposed patch, because the misalignedness of mm should
be visible at -O2 and prevent the strict_volatile bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65421
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65424
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65425
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 35056
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35056&action=edit
incomplete patch
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
