https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81747
--- Comment #7 from Alan Modra ---
Yeah, I have more or less the same patch about to be bootstrapped.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81747
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yeah, I found out it is _not_ the one the backtrace (or GDB) points at.
I have a patch:
===
diff --git a/gcc/cse.c b/gcc/cse.c
index 6a968d1..34650d2 100644
--- a/gcc/cse.c
+++ b/gcc/cse.c
@@ -6642,6 +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81747
--- Comment #5 from Alan Modra ---
Segher, the confusion is due to looking at the wrong BRANCH_EDGE occurrence in
cse.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81389
rockeet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81747
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yeah, but the condition in which BRANCH_EDGE is called starts with
if (EDGE_COUNT (previous_bb_in_path->succs) == 2
so I'm confused now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81776
Bug ID: 81776
Summary: missing sprintf optimization due to pointer escape
analysis
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Mike Lothian from comment #6)
> I tried the test case with
>
> gcc -O2 -march=native test.c -o test
>
> and
>
> gcc -O2 -march=native -mno-bmi test.c -o test
>
> Both executables seem to run with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81747
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81772
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #6 from Mike Lothian ---
I tried the test case with
gcc -O2 -march=native test.c -o test
and
gcc -O2 -march=native -mno-bmi test.c -o test
Both executables seem to run with no output
I've only seen the issue in radeonsi in Mesa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81747
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
Tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81607
--- Comment #12 from Dmitry Babokin ---
The fix helped all fails that I see (with all 7 different symptoms). Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81498
Bug 81498 depends on bug 81523, which changed state.
Bug 81523 Summary: -static -pie behaves differently depending on if
--enable-default-pie is used
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81523
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80044
Bug 80044 depends on bug 81523, which changed state.
Bug 81523 Summary: -static -pie behaves differently depending on if
--enable-default-pie is used
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81523
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81170
Bug 81170 depends on bug 81523, which changed state.
Bug 81523 Summary: -static -pie behaves differently depending on if
--enable-default-pie is used
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81523
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81523
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81523
--- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Aug 8 22:06:21 2017
New Revision: 250974
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250974&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR driver/81523: Make -static override -pie
-static and -pie toget
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81465
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81766
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81750
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from TC ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81669
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from TC ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81485
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81747
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81772
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
You probably could optimize snprintf(buf, size, "%s", str) into this:
if (size > 0)
{
buf[0] = 0;
strncat(buf, str, size - 1);
}
Other optimizations would require to generate more code aa you wrote.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81096
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64512
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81751
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The current __basic_file::sys_open behaviour came from the PR 17215 fix
(r86756). Before that change we called sync() after doing _M_cfile=__file, but
after we call sync() while it's still null.
I think ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68033
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code, openmp
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68485
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79120
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81197
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79820
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The bug title says std::ifstream sets errno to zero, but it should never run
stdio_filebuf::sys_open. Do you have a testcase for this?
We should still fix it even if it only affects a non-standard extensio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79391
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79565
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
This might be PR 53399.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81775
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81712
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||guido at trentalancia dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81251
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81775
Bug ID: 81775
Summary: GCC fails to compile: md-unwind-support.h:65
dereferencing pointer to incomplete type ‘struct
ucontext’
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17215
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81708
--- Comment #9 from H. Peter Anvin ---
In some applications it might even be appropriate to use the RDPID instruction
and store the canary in the IA32_TSC_AUX MSR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81748
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81708
--- Comment #8 from H. Peter Anvin ---
How about simply letting the user enter an assembly expression of neither of
the standard ABI options are suitable? Also, shouldn't the user space default
on 64 bits be an offset into the TLS using %fs, or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81774
--- Comment #3 from Piotr ---
And what about if volatile variable changes during the multiplications. Mybe
not in this example but if y was declared global - it can be interrupted
between multiplications.
volatile int y;
int x3(int x)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81708
--- Comment #7 from Andy Lutomirski ---
Hmm. This is a big improvement, but it's still going to be awkward to use --
if we want to use a normal Linux percpu variable, we're stuck putting it in a
fixed location that's known at compile time as opp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81772
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81774
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81774
Piotr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pj at hugeone dot co.uk
Version|new-r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81774
Bug ID: 81774
Summary: Volatile - order of reads in generated code
Product: gcc
Version: new-ra
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81708
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81591
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Sistek ---
Created attachment 41953
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41953&action=edit
an enhanced version of the example producing an error
Hi Jakub,
sorry for my late response, I was on vacation :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81708
--- Comment #5 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Aug 8 16:48:46 2017
New Revision: 250965
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250965&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/81708
* config/i386/i386.opt (mstack-pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81773
--- Comment #1 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 41952
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41952&action=edit
Example producing the bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81773
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81773
Bug ID: 81773
Summary: [Coarray] Get with vector index on lhs leads to
incorrect caf_get_by_ref() call.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71361
--- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmm, but it can't be backported to 7 branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71361
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> So shall we defer this PR to GCC 8 then (i.e. [8 Regression] and Target
> Milestone: 8.0? Richard, are you ok with that?
With ivopt rewriting, we now
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53090
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81566
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81544
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80283
--- Comment #18 from Michael_S ---
O.k. Not a back end.
The part of compiler that is responsible for binding local variables to
registers or to stack locations. I am assuming that such part exists in gcc and
acts after tree-ter phase, but before
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70100
--- Comment #3 from Jaak Ristioja ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #1)
> template struct K {
> using CmdSP = std::D;
> template void operator()(Args... args) {
> using MakeFunc = CmdSP(...);
> MakeFunc makeFuncs;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81772
Bug ID: 81772
Summary: Compile-time snprintf optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80283
--- Comment #17 from Wilco ---
(In reply to shatz from comment #16)
> I still think that effect of tree-ter is accidental and relatively
> unimportant.
> Very similar problems with SIMD register allocation could easily happen
> without tree-ter,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80859
--- Comment #27 from Thorsten Kurth ---
Hello Jakub,
I wanted to follow up on this. Is there any progress on this issue?
Best Regards
Thorsten Kurth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81741
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80283
shatz at dsit dot co.il changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||shatz at dsit dot co.il
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81566
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #3 from Mike Lothian ---
So dropping the -march=native allows everything to work again no matter which
version of GCC
Just using -mbmi breaks things and using -march=native -mno-bmi allows it all
to work
This is on a Skylake process
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
--- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt ---
Proposed patch awaiting approval:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-08/msg00347.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19706
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81766
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 41950
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41950&action=edit
gcc8-pr81766.patch
Untested patch that fixes the ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81771
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81768
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openmp
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81771
Bug ID: 81771
Summary: __basic_file::sys_open is not a reserved name
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81770
Bug ID: 81770
Summary: [5/6/7 Regression] Bogus warning: Pointer in pointer
assignment might outlive the pointer target
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81766
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|7.2 |8.0
Summary|[7/8 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81766
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|7.2 |8.0
Summary|[7/8 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19706
--- Comment #3 from Tamar Christina ---
Author: tnfchris
Date: Tue Aug 8 13:17:41 2017
New Revision: 250957
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250957&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-08 Tamar Christina
PR middle-end/19706
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19706
--- Comment #2 from Tamar Christina ---
Author: tnfchris
Date: Tue Aug 8 13:15:44 2017
New Revision: 250956
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250956&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-08 Tamar Christina
Andrew Pinski
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
Fixed on trunk so far, and verified that a modified backport fixes the limited
range on 5.4 where the provided test case fails. Backports to follow in about
a week after burn-in.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Aug 8 12:52:22 2017
New Revision: 250955
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250955&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-08-08 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/81354
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81719
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Aug 8 12:51:20 2017
New Revision: 250954
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250954&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-08 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/81719
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81719
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81723
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Aug 8 12:49:39 2017
New Revision: 250953
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250953&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-08 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/81723
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81723
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Summary|[7/8 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81766
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Sadly:
--- gcc/config/i386/i386.c.jj 2017-08-07 18:50:10.0 +0200
+++ gcc/config/i386/i386.c 2017-08-08 14:33:06.462836529 +0200
@@ -8846,6 +8846,10 @@ ix86_init_large_pic_reg (unsigned int tm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81769
Bug ID: 81769
Summary: Unnecessary stack realign with -mavx
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81767
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Already fixed on trunk with r248483
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81768
Bug ID: 81768
Summary: error: control flow in the middle of basic block
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81766
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> This stuff is weird anyway, do we really need it at the beginning of the
> function, even if we say shrink-wrap (i.e. shouldn't it be done in the
> prologue)?
PIC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81766
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> find_bb_boundaries doesn't seem to expect existing NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK, so
> calling it on existing blocks exposes un-optimalities in case labels are
> valid a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81753
--- Comment #5 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes please do. The only wrinkle is as segher pointed out to me yesterday, make
sure this only applies to powerpc darwin in config.gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81766
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, it seems the CODE_LABEL in the first bb (successor of entry bb) is added by
ix86_init_large_pic_reg called by called by ix86_init_pic_reg from:
5135 /* Perform target specific PIC register initializa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81696
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Aug 8 11:59:23 2017
New Revision: 250951
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250951&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
ICF: properly handle LABEL_DECLs (PR tree-opt/81696).
2017-08-08 Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81736
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
Another weird code with -fno-omit-frame-pointer:
[hjl@gnu-6 pr59501]$ cat k.i
typedef int v8si __attribute__ ((vector_size (32)));
void
foo (v8si *idx, v8si *out_start, v8si *out_end,
v8si *regions)
{
v8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81736
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81744
--- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Aug 8 11:32:05 2017
New Revision: 250950
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250950&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/81744
* tree-predcom.c (pre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81313
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
