https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78795
--- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #11)
> On Debian, after path canonicalization, this is /usr/lib/bfd-plugins, but
> only packages should manage files under /usr/lib (unlike /usr/local, for
> instance)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81386
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Carl, please revert the patch until you have time to investigate. This will
cause havoc every time we vectorize with these patterns.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81386
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carll at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81386
--- Comment #6 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So here is comparing 249423 (works) with 249424 (fails):
seurer@genoa:~/gcc/build/gcc-test2$ svn info $GCC_SRC
. . .
Revision: 249423
. . .
seurer@genoa:~/gcc/build/gcc-test2$ /home/seurer/gcc/bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81471
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ra |
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81471
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Gian-Carlo Pascutto from comment #4)
> Further reduced testcase:
>
> #include
>
> uint64_t f(uint64_t x) {
> return ((uint32_t)x << 55) | ((uint32_t)x >> -23);
> }
>
> This makes it more cl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81471
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81471
--- Comment #4 from Gian-Carlo Pascutto ---
Further reduced testcase:
#include
uint64_t f(uint64_t x) {
return ((uint32_t)x << 55) | ((uint32_t)x >> -23);
}
This makes it more clear the code is UB, but AFAIK a compiler ICE doesn't fall
un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81471
--- Comment #3 from Gian-Carlo Pascutto ---
Note the flags, -march=native in this case was Intel Haswell.
-O3 -march=haswell is required to trigger this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81428
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jul 17 19:45:59 2017
New Revision: 250289
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250289&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/81428
* match.pd (X / X -> one): Don'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81471
--- Comment #2 from Gian-Carlo Pascutto ---
#include
inline uint32_t rotl(const uint32_t x, const int k) {
return (x << k) | (x >> (32 - k));
}
uint64_t s[2];
uint64_t random(void) {
const uint64_t s0 = s[0];
uint64_t s1 = s[1];
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Doesn't reproduce for powerpc64le. I'll have to build a cross.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81365
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jul 17 19:42:37 2017
New Revision: 250288
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250288&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/81365
* tree-ssa-phiprop.c (propagate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81066
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jul 17 19:41:08 2017
New Revision: 250287
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250287&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-07-14 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81258
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jul 17 19:39:23 2017
New Revision: 250286
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250286&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-07-04 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81225
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jul 17 19:38:29 2017
New Revision: 250285
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250285&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-06-30 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81471
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Gian-Carlo Pascutto from comment #0)
> In another module there is:
Please provide a compilable source file (preferably minimized) that triggers
the ICE, as instructed in [1].
[1] https://gcc.gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81386
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
The code is being vectorized in the "fails" dump and not being vectorized in
the "works" dump. This cannot be due to r249424, which does gimple folding on
some Power-specific built-ins, for this is a generic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81386
--- Comment #4 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Looking at the difference in generated code. The more recent (failing) builds
are generating a whole bunch of vector ops where the old (working) code did
not.
< failing code (r250280)
> last wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81386
--- Comment #3 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 41777
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41777&action=edit
Assembler for works
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81386
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 41776
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41776&action=edit
Assembler for fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81468
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler ---
It seems that the implementation simply forgot to constrain overload
resolution, since this is the complete definition of the affected constructor:
template
constexpr time_point(const time_point& __t)
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81162
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Jul 17 19:12:11 2017
New Revision: 250284
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250284&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-07-17 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/81162
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81345
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|7.1.0 |8.0
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81469
emi_cuenca at hotmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||emi_cuenca at hotmail dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81471
Bug ID: 81471
Summary: internal compiler error: in curr_insn_transform, at
lra-constraints.c:3495
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81470
Bug ID: 81470
Summary: [8 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failures in
gcc/ada
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81469
Bug ID: 81469
Summary: std::uncaught_exception should be marked as deprecated
for C++1z
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81468
Bug ID: 81468
Summary: is_constructible gives the wrong answer for time_point
construction
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81393
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81467
Bug ID: 81467
Summary: AVX-512 support for inline assembly
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81456
--- Comment #2 from James Greenhalgh ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Confirmed, started with r238594.
The cost model relies on the target giving a reasonable approximation for an
instruction size through ix86_rtx_costs.
The bas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52992
Andris Pavenis changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140
--- Comment #7 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> Created attachment 41772 [details]
> Patch candidate
>
> I'm going to prepare some test-cases for that. Does it look good?
Yes, it now inlines small constant sizes. Howe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71681
Andris Pavenis changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81464
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
Minimal example:
...
program main
implicit none
real, dimension(:,:),allocatable :: a, b, c
real :: sm
allocate (a(2,2), b(2,2), c(2,2))
call random_number(a)
call random_number(b)
c = matmul(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46742
--- Comment #5 from Franz Sirl ---
Actually, after seeing a large bunch of justified warnings in our codebase with
the disabled APPEARS_TO_BE_BOOLEAN_EXPR_P check, I wonder if a new option like
-Wbool-bitwise-parentheses (thus not depending on th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81442
--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to cesar from comment #4)
> I posted a patch that fixes this issue on July 13, 2017:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg00750.html
>
> It is pending review.
Assuming this is indeed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81403
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Kind-of a duplicate of PR80620 as well. Testing a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81403
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
So this is during partial-PRE insertion where after PRE insertion of
Found partial redundancy for expression {bit_not_expr,_13} (0020)
Inserted _33 = ~_3;
in predecessor 5 (0014)
Created phi prephitmp_34 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81453
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81462
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70992
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81443
--- Comment #3 from Joshua Kinard ---
It's just build/genrecog.c. I had a stale build environment file that was
still sending "-j3" to 'make'. I fixed that and restarted from where it last
left off, and it gets to genrecog.c and spent about ~20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46742
--- Comment #4 from Franz Sirl ---
APPEARS_TO_BE_BOOLEAN_EXPR_P was introduced with r141340 (PR 7543), but I
cannot find a discussion on why this suppression makes sense. When I disable it
I only see 3 places where it triggers in trunk:
gcc/cp/l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81442
cesar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cesar at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70992
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81426
--- Comment #6 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #5)
> This sounds like a different issue. Can you please create another PR for
> that with the title "syntax error in @(disp,[Rn, gbr, pc]) when compiling
> wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81466
--- Comment #1 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 41775
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41775&action=edit
Generated assembly for MapPrototype.cpp (gzipped)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63361
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
grep FLT_EVAL_METHOD config/*/*
says the only problematic arches are i?86, s390*, m68k*, arm and maybe aarch64.
add-ieee-options has just i?86 and m68k (clearly wrong, because it really
should
not use
[istar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81466
Bug ID: 81466
Summary: [SH]: Error: syntax error in @(disp,[Rn, gbr, pc])
when building with -mlra
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
URL: https://people.debian.org/~glaubitz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81462
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 41772
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41772&action=edit
Patch candidate
I'm going to prepare some test-cases for that. Does it look good?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63361
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> Comment on attachment 41771 [details]
> Patch candidate
>
> I don't think we want to add -ffloat-store unconditionally, only for targets
> that really need it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6906
--- Comment #8 from owner at bugs dot debian.org ---
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this Bug report.
This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.
Your message is be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81461
--- Comment #2 from Antony Polukhin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> jump threading
Thanks, now I know hot the transformation of
for (;it != end && it != *chunks + 128; ++it) {
sum += *it;
}
into
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63361
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Comment on attachment 41771
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41771
Patch candidate
I don't think we want to add -ffloat-store unconditionally, only for targets
that really need it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6906
felix changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||felix.von.s at posteo dot de
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63361
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 41771
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41771&action=edit
Patch candidate
Can you please test the attached patch on Pentium 2 machine?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63361
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
It's a typical x87 code, where registers have better precision that a double.
Thus adding -ffloat-store fixed the test-case, I'll send a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28859
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Yep, let's forget about it ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63361
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28859
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 17 Jul 2017, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28859
>
> Martin Liška changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79162
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28859
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81441
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
ethz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81162
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
Right, sorry about the ubsan dependency screwup. I'll move the test case later
today.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81443
--- Comment #2 from Joshua Kinard ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> What file is it compiling?
As far as I can tell, it looks somewhat random. I initially thought that
'build/genrecog.o' was a single file, but after several re-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81162
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 17 Jul 2017, bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81162
>
> Bernd Edlinger changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81418
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Hrm. So whenever a reducing pattern is exercised in the reduction "chain" we
cannot handle regular uses of the PHI as we basically have to force a
single_defuse_cycle.
So we can't vectorize this case but w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81423
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5)
> There are a few issues here.
>
> 1) I cannot reproduce it: a trunk x86_64-linux compiler stores to
> memory in that insn 20 (the testcase from comment 3).
Ju
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81426
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #4)
>
> It helps, indeed. The build now passes the problematic source code file.
> However, it now bails out later with:
>
> /tmp/cck5XKuE.s: Assembler messag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81347
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I would guess that the instantiation of A::tree injects the type map into the
enclosing namespace, and then the using-declaration finds two declarations and
thinks it's an error.
bug.cc:17:10: error: ‘map’
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81347
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|RESOL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81162
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81302
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Jul 17 11:44:54 2017
New Revision: 250271
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250271&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Do not allow -fgnu-tm w/ -fsanitize={kernel-,}address (PR sanitizer/81302)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81388
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81369
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Mon Jul 17 11:40:54 2017
New Revision: 250270
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250270&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/81369
* tree-loop-distribution.c (clas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81458
--- Comment #2 from Joerg Sonnenberger ---
More testing seems to point to binutils 2.28 as fixing objcopy. It is still not
clear whether there is any reason to preferring it though, especially as many
systems ship older versions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81369
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Mon Jul 17 11:38:15 2017
New Revision: 250269
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250269&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/81369
* tree-loop-distribution.c (merg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81464
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|7.0 |8.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81462
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Version|7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81463
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Version|7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81461
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81460
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|7.0 |8.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81457
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Please post the patch to gcc-patches
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81374
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Mon Jul 17 11:34:30 2017
New Revision: 250268
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250268&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/81374
* tree-loop-distribut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81456
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81450
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81426
--- Comment #4 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #3)
> Please try. It might allow you to at least build the package. Regardless
> of that, let's keep this PR open.
It helps, indeed. The build now passes the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81443
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||mips
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81441
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81030
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #9 from Tom de Vries -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81423
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81418
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81410
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81442
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81408
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81406
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
