https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66012
Bug ID: 66012
Summary: Sub-optimal 64bit load is generated instead of
zero-extension
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65871
--- Comment #8 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue May 5 04:36:19 2015
New Revision: 222795
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222795&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65871
* config/i386/i386.md (*bmi_andn__
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66011
Bug ID: 66011
Summary: call to '__open_missing_mode' declared with attribute
error
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49204
Bug 49204 depends on bug 51617, which changed state.
Bug 51617 Summary: [C++0x] async(f) isn't.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51617
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51617
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51617
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue May 5 01:56:47 2015
New Revision: 222793
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222793&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/51617
* include/std/future (async): Change
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66003
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
slsr does a good job at cleaning up a little bit the code. I would have
suspected slsr would have generated the addresses correctly and move the add
inside the loop.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66003
--- Comment #2 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Hmm, I think IVOPTs should be able to undo this code motion?
It can't. Address of all pointer dereferences except the first one are not
even inductio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65987
Kazumoto Kojima changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66009
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Yup, it's my patch. Reverted while I figure out what went wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65987
--- Comment #2 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Mon May 4 23:25:58 2015
New Revision: 222783
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222783&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65987
* config/sh/sh.c (output_far_jump, split_branches): Ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66010
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Missed optimization after |[6 Regression] Missed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66009
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66010
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35460
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35460&action=edit
Demonstrator patch
I tracked down which passes are responsible for making the code for f1 and f2
look
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66010
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66010
Bug ID: 66010
Summary: Missed optimization after inlining va_list parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66007
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17995
--- Comment #20 from Cary Lewis ---
Thanks very much for the help on this. i will try the --enable-cheaders.
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 4:59 PM, redi at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17995
>
> --- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66007
--- Comment #13 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon May 4 20:59:03 2015
New Revision: 222779
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222779&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2015-05-04 Paolo Carlini
Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17995
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Cary Lewis from comment #18)
> There must be something unique about the SCO environment that leads to this
> error.
>
> Maybe the way that the gcc 2.95.3 compiler gets installed.
The problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66007
--- Comment #12 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon May 4 20:58:33 2015
New Revision: 222778
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222778&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2015-05-04 Paolo Carlini
Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
--- Comment #24 from Bill Schmidt ---
No, I don't think so. The same change was made in GCC 4.9, and it didn't cause
it to XPASS there (looking at gcc-testresults). Also, my change restricted the
number of cases for which a test is expected to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65947
AK changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hiraditya at msn dot com
--- Comment #2 from AK --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65984
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon May 4 19:53:35 2015
New Revision: 222776
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222776&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/65984
* ubsan.c: Include tree-cfg.h.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65984
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon May 4 19:52:33 2015
New Revision: 222775
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222775&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/65984
* ubsan.c: Include tree-cfg.h.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
zaafrani changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||az.zaafrani at gmail dot com
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66009
Bug ID: 66009
Summary: [6 Regression] Bootstrap failure on x86
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54835
--- Comment #10 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #9)
> I believe that the resolution of DR 1630 clarifies that value-initialization
> can invoke an explicit constructor even in copy-list-initialization context,
> so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65995
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Starke ---
I already applied the open() patch listed there so this is definitively a
different bug. I will try again with the current trunk hopefully within this
week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65883
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65883
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon May 4 18:20:10 2015
New Revision: 222772
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222772&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2015-04-28 Marc Glisse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66007
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini ---
Turns out we want to check by hand errorcount at least to avoid additional
overflow diagnostic (eg, cpp0x/enum29.C)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17995
--- Comment #18 from Cary Lewis ---
I took your advice, and attempted to bootstrap gcc 4.2.4 with languages=c,c++
I received a very similar error:
make[4]: Entering directory
`/tmp/gcc-build/i686-pc-sco3.2v5.0.7/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++'
/bin/sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66004
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
At r222180: 40068917595
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66007
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|paolo.carlini at oracle dot com|jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66007
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #8)
> Index: typeck2.c
> ===
> --- typeck2.c (revision 222767)
> +++ typeck2.c (working copy)
> @@ -959,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66007
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini ---
Index: typeck2.c
===
--- typeck2.c (revision 222767)
+++ typeck2.c (working copy)
@@ -959,10 +959,10 @@ check_narrowing (tree type, tree ini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66007
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini ---
Unfortunately, I'm afraid it's a real issue. Note the test has
-Wno-error=narrowing, not -Wno-narrowing. Thus the pedwarn at typeck2.c:962
returns true and ok remains false while we only emitted a warning and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66007
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66007
Evangelos Foutras changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35453|0 |1
is obsolete|
owing
.file ""
:1:32: warning: narrowing conversion of ‘4294967295u’ from ‘unsigned
int’ to ‘int’ inside { } [-Wnarrowing]
.globl foo
.bss
.align 8
.type foo, @object
.size foo, 12
foo:
.zero 12
.ide
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66007
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66008
Daniel Frenzel changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://stackoverflow.com/qu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66008
Bug ID: 66008
Summary: "section type conflict" if calling a macro inlined or
in a two times derived class
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65854
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Sutton ---
Confirmed. Parsing a type requirement that names an alias template was giving
back a declaration, which wasn't being instantiated correctly.
r222769 unwraps the type from the declaration and will correctly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54835
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
I believe that the resolution of DR 1630 clarifies that value-initialization
can invoke an explicit constructor even in copy-list-initialization context, so
I should revert my change for this PR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47359
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2011-05-23 09:58:19 |2015-5-4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60322
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64674
--- Comment #4 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
First patch available at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-05/msg00011.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64674
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65972
--- Comment #3 from AK ---
Created attachment 35457
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35457&action=edit
Preprocesed unwind-arm.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
--- Comment #29 from Mikhail Maltsev ---
Results for attached testcase:
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-5820K CPU @ 3.30GHz (Haswell)
g++ -O3 -march=native -mtune=native
1 iterations
Clang 3.7
Total absolute time for int32_t for loop unrolling: 0.99 s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
--- Comment #23 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 35456
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35456&action=edit
bb-slp-32.c.141t.slp2 dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66007
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maltsevm at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
--- Comment #24 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 35454
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35454&action=edit
bb-slp-14.c.141t.slp2 dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 62283, which changed state.
Bug 62283 Summary: basic-block vectorization fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65428
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-03-15 00:00:00 |2015-5-4
--- Comment #1 from F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66007
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32834
Bug 32834 depends on bug 44735, which changed state.
Bug 44735 Summary: ICE on FORALL with character array pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44735
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19276
Bug 19276 depends on bug 44735, which changed state.
Bug 44735 Summary: ICE on FORALL with character array pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44735
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44735
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44735
--- Comment #8 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Mon May 4 14:27:14 2015
New Revision: 222766
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222766&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/44735
* gfortran.dg/pr44735.f90:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65965
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65965
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 4 14:24:49 2015
New Revision: 222765
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222765&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-04 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/65965
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 65965, which changed state.
Bug 65965 Summary: Straight-line memcpy/memset not vectorized when equivalent
loop is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65965
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801
Evangelos Foutras changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||evangelos at foutrelis dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52159
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66007
Bug ID: 66007
Summary: [5 Regression] Narrowing conversion inside { } results
in all zero elements in C++11 mode
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50394
Steffen Hau changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steffen at hauihau dot de
--- Comment #30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66002
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> prephitmp_61 = _53 <= 65535 ? pretmp_60 : -32768;
>
> is
>
> unsigned int <= 65535 ? short int : short int;
>
> pushing the condition to a separa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66006
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66006
Bug ID: 66006
Summary: [6 regression] abi_check FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66002
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66002
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66002
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
high up in the profile are functions train() and dot_product(), also
ContextMap::mix1 and Mixer::p. But
void train(short *t, short *w, int n, int err) {
n=(n+7)&-8;
for (int i=0; i>16)+1>>1);
if (w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
Bug ID: 66005
Summary: libgomp make check time is excessive
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65935
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65935
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 4 13:31:02 2015
New Revision: 222764
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222764&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-04 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/65935
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65993
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 |hppa64-hp-hpux11.11,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65983
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||65915
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41089
Bug 41089 depends on bug 64950, which changed state.
Bug 64950 Summary: postpone expanding va_arg till pass_stdarg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64950
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64950
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51153
Bug 51153 depends on bug 64950, which changed state.
Bug 64950 Summary: postpone expanding va_arg till pass_stdarg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64950
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52159
--- Comment #4 from Steffen Hau ---
Created attachment 35452
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35452&action=edit
preprocessed sources and minimal build script
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66004
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |6.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52159
Steffen Hau changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steffen at hauihau dot de
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65767
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66002
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
clang without -vectorize-loops -vectorize-slp:
./paq8p -4 file1.in 54.82s user 0.08s system 100% cpu 54.891 total
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66002
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
gprof tells me
Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds.
% cumulative self self total
time seconds secondscalls s/call s/call name
67.13 25.4025.40 20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66004
Bug ID: 66004
Summary: [6 Regression]: performance of
26_numerics/random/negative_binomial_distribution/oper
ators/values.cc
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61303
--- Comment #8 from Maciej Bliziński ---
Here's my attempt to get some information:
experimental10s 14:35:13 ~/src/opencsw-gar/v2/go $ gcc -v
Reading specs from /opt/csw/lib/gcc/sparc-sun-solaris2.10/5.1.0/specs
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65996
--- Comment #8 from Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner at DLR dot de ---
Thanks for the quick replies and the discussion about the "not-so-usefulness"
of the -dH switch (at least for our project).
We most probably used this switch by mistake - you might poss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66001
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maltsevm at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66003
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65993
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|5.0 |6.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65987
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65982
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.2
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
