: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 11.0.0 20201030 (experimental) (GCC)
***
Command Lines:
$ gcc -Wall -Wextra -fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv -Os -ftree-slp-vectorize
-fallow-store-data-races a.c
d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96701
Eugene Rozenfeld changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||erozen at microsoft dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97223
Eugene Rozenfeld changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||erozen at microsoft dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95519
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96958
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96958
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:943cc2a1b70f2d755b4fed97b1c4b49234d92899
commit r11-4585-g943cc2a1b70f2d755b4fed97b1c4b49234d92899
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97600
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:afb8da7faa9dfe5a0d94ed45a373d74c076784ab
commit r11-4584-gafb8da7faa9dfe5a0d94ed45a373d74c076784ab
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96958
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97461
--- Comment #20 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #17)
> Or I may have a smarter trick: let's do dry run of malloc/free functions
> early in __gcov_init. Can you please test the patch as well?
>
> commit d80cecdb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97649
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97649
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Was this a --disable-linux-futex build or not? I believe TSAN at least in the
past didn't understand well the futex synchronization libgomp does on linux.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97649
Bug ID: 97649
Summary: OpenMP: 'target teams' with host-fallback: race
condition according to TSAN
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: open
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96958
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a1343e5c74093124d7fbce6052d838f47a8eeb20
commit r11-4581-ga1343e5c74093124d7fbce6052d838f47a8eeb20
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93678
--- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Another data point: comparing the -fdump-fortran-original of
res = b_unpackbytes (me) ! ok
vs.
res = me% unpackbytes () ! ICE
I see:
ASSIGN b_unpackint:res(FULL) b_unpackbytes[[((b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.0|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93678
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Further reduced:
module mo_a
implicit none
type t_b
contains
procedure :: unpackbytes => b_unpackbytes
end type t_b
contains
function b_unpackbytes (me) result (res)
class(t_b)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97644
--- Comment #5 from Iain Buclaw ---
Without doing any bisecting, r11-4572 looks very suspect for the cause of the
segmentation fault.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93678
--- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #5)
> A somewhat smaller test case, which of course does nothing useful,
> but still reproduces the ICE:
Further reduced / simplified:
module mo_a
implic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97323
--- Comment #10 from Richard Henderson ---
Created attachment 49473
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49473&action=edit
rfc patch
The following fixes the ICE.
It seems like a hack, done at the wrong level.
Should we have in f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97644
--- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #3)
> I haven't seen any failures as of r11-4466. So a regression cropped up over
> the last couple days maybe?
Actually, make that r11-4555 being the last commit tested,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97644
--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
I haven't seen any failures as of r11-4466. So a regression cropped up over
the last couple days maybe?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97648
Bug ID: 97648
Summary: Rejects valid direct initialization from prvalue
(private destructor)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86373
Lénárd Szolnoki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||leni536 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97581
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97581
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:667db6dedd80487663c29b21efa942f661b569a8
commit r11-4579-g667db6dedd80487663c29b21efa942f661b569a8
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97323
--- Comment #9 from Richard Henderson ---
As a data point, this problem can be seen with any
strict-alignment target -- e.g. sparc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97556
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97647
Bug ID: 97647
Summary: Accepts undefined delete expression in constant
expression
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97556
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bdf6524bc0bfa0908a7a7c52e799dbecbebaefe8
commit r11-4576-gbdf6524bc0bfa0908a7a7c52e799dbecbebaefe8
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97644
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Also same ICE in:
FAIL: gdc.test/runnable_cxx/cppa.d (internal compiler error)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97646
Bug ID: 97646
Summary: FAIL: obj-c++.dg/template-4.mm due to ICE in n
potential_constant_expression_1, at
cp/constexpr.c:8417
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97645
Bug ID: 97645
Summary: Rejects valid subscript expression on array of unknown
bound in constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97644
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Ditto in gdc.dg/pr92216.d:
/ssd/test/src/gcc/97556/gcc/testsuite/gdc.dg/pr92216.d:10:1: internal compiler
error: Segmentation fault
0xe979da crash_signal
/ssd/test/src/gcc/97556/gcc/toplev.c:330
0x66e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97644
Bug ID: 97644
Summary: FAIL: gdc.dg/gdc204.d due to ICE in finish_thunk
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97643
Bug ID: 97643
Summary: Accepts invalid qualification conversion involving
array of unknown bound [P0388]
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97642
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The testcase is:
#include
#include
#include
#include
#define N 5
// Faults with GCC because usage of vpblendd
__m256i __attribute__((noinline)) mask_load(uint32_t * arr) {
__m256i tmp;
return _m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97642
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97556
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89605
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97642
Bug ID: 97642
Summary: Incorrect replacement of vmovdqu32 with vpblendd can
cause fault
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97641
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97641
--- Comment #7 from Dmitriy Ovdienko ---
If I change the body of the loop like this, it also works
```
while ('\x01' != *ptr)
{
result = result * 10 - '0' + *ptr++;
}
```
Looks like integer overflow happens on last iteration and compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97641
--- Comment #6 from Dmitriy Ovdienko ---
This code does not work
```
#include
int Parse1(char const* ptr) noexcept
{
int result = 0;
while ('\x01' != *ptr)
{
result = result * 10 + *ptr++ - '0';
}
return result;
}
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97641
Dmitriy Ovdienko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97641
--- Comment #4 from Dmitriy Ovdienko ---
It happens to 2147483646, 2147483647 and std::numeric_limits::min().
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97641
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Use -fsanitize=undefined to get it diagnosed at runtime. Although, that
routine doesn't handle even Parse1("2147483631\x01") etc. correctly.
Just use unsigned int result = 0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97641
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97641
--- Comment #1 from Dmitriy Ovdienko ---
OS: Windows 10
Distribution: MSys2 (https://www.msys2.org/)
Version: (Rev4, Built by MSYS2 project) 10.2.0
I tried to reproduce this issue on https://gcc.godbolt.org/. gcc (trunk) is
also unable to compil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97641
Bug ID: 97641
Summary: Wrong codegen if optimizer is enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97493
--- Comment #5 from suochenyao at 163 dot com ---
***
I think this can be reproduced with "-fno-strict-aliasing"...
I am not sure whether it can be helpful...
***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97520
--- Comment #6 from suochenyao at 163 dot com ---
(In reply to suochen...@163.com from comment #5)
> *
> **
> I think this can be reproduced with "-fno-strict-aliasing"..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97520
--- Comment #5 from suochenyao at 163 dot com ---
***
I think this can be reproduced with "-fno-strict-aliasing"...
I am not sure whether it can be helpful...
***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97622
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
There are still 81 warnings on x86_64-linux at unique spots during bootstrap
more than a year after the warning has been added, and at least several of
those aren't really bugs in the code, so the question is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97622
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97640
--- Comment #1 from sandthorn ---
The y-combinator implementation is from Barry's and Mathemagician's answer on
SO.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/40873657/6370128
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97640
Bug ID: 97640
Summary: GCC doesn't optimize-out outside-affecting lambdas
within y-combinator while clang does.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97623
--- Comment #7 from Wilson Snyder ---
Thanks for the quick service. I can't easily try GCC trunk, but:
-O2
compile 98.61s
runtime 25.76s
-O2 -fno-code-hoisting
compile 40.13s
runtime 26.40s (+2.5%)
-Os
compile 4.25s
runtime 23.42s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97504
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #49471|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97593
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aa701610e51ca9e15573ba080cb93ef726252cfc
commit r11-4572-gaa701610e51ca9e15573ba080cb93ef726252cfc
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Fri Oc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97623
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
So this is the change improving the hoist insert situation but it is not a
solution for the back-to-back of PRE vs. hoist insertion. Will have to think
about this some more and then eventually simply add so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97623
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:82ff7e3426ea926d090777173977f8bedd086816
commit r11-4570-g82ff7e3426ea926d090777173977f8bedd086816
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 97412, which changed state.
Bug 97412 Summary: [10/11 Regression] [concepts] ICE with requires requires and
parameter packs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97412
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97412
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5ab7959ee18980d676892fa6579f1ca09c5ecc08
commit r10-8957-g5ab7959ee18980d676892fa6579f1ca09c5ecc08
Author: Patrick Palka
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97412
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97417
--- Comment #9 from Levy ---
Thanks Jim. See u on Monday.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97623
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97623
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so we have PRE and hoist insertion exposing new opportunities to each
other, making things tickle up the CFG. Then, the way hoist insertion works
it would be better suited to a bottom-up walk since hois
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97627
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97626
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:33c0f246f799b7403171e97f31276a8feddd05c9
commit r11-4569-g33c0f246f799b7403171e97f31276a8feddd05c9
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97626
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97639
Bug ID: 97639
Summary: [c++20,-fconcepts-ts] ICE: gcc_assert in tsubst,
cp/pt.c:15464
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97638
Bug ID: 97638
Summary: aarch64: bti c is missing at function entry with
branch-protection
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92793
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fc423b4e5b16dc02cc9f91fdfc800d00a5103dea
commit r10-8956-gfc423b4e5b16dc02cc9f91fdfc800d00a5103dea
Author: Thomas Schwing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92793
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fa410314ec94c9df2ad270c1917adc51f9147c2c
commit r11-4567-gfa410314ec94c9df2ad270c1917adc51f9147c2c
Author: Thomas Schwinge
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96998
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97504
--- Comment #26 from Eric Botcazou ---
Created attachment 49471
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49471&action=edit
Tentative fix for the SuSE PowerPC compiler
Martin, can you give it a try when you get a chance?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63272
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97637
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Sometimes it may shrink the code a lot, it really depends on the code. Just
that the question whether a particular transformation will make code faster or
not is the primary question to ask, unless compiling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97637
--- Comment #4 from Christer Solskogen ---
Okay, so LTO together with O2/O3 or Ofast will not help code size that much.
I was worried that something was wrong with how GCC was configured or the
command line parameters I was using since the binar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97633
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c0bfd9672e19caf08e45afeb4277f848488ced2b
commit r11-4564-gc0bfd9672e19caf08e45afeb4277f848488ced2b
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97633
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94464
Chinoune changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97637
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95150
Chinoune changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96998
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alex Coplan :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7de23b8c536397117bbea04a722fa1b86564dd7c
commit r11-4563-g7de23b8c536397117bbea04a722fa1b86564dd7c
Author: Alex Coplan
Date: Fri O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97637
--- Comment #2 from Christer Solskogen ---
You are correct. I've replaced Ofast with O2 (but it doesn't seem to matter
that much) - with the default inline-unit-growth the binary gets 5% bigger.
With inline-unit-growth=20 the binary gets 5%~ sma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97558
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Maybe a bit different back-trace:
$ gcc
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/no-scevccp-outer-10b.c
-fno-tree-forwprop -O3 -c -c
during GIMPLE pass: vect
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97634
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97633
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97636
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97461
--- Comment #19 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #16)
> (In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #15)
> > allocate_gcov_kvp() gets called 89 times. Tried as:
>
> All right, it's quite close to what we have.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97504
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #23)
> > It's a build log from OpenSUSE OBS, so it contains all that you requested.
>
> AFAICS this log is for a native compiler:
>
> [ 131s] checking build system
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97637
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97633
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97417
--- Comment #8 from Levy ---
Created attachment 49470
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49470&action=edit
optimization fix for BUG 97417
proposing a temp patch here in case someone needs it, then I'll submit a full
patch with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97636
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97634
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97633
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97631
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97637
Bug ID: 97637
Summary: Compiling with LTO causes a bigger binary
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
100 matches
Mail list logo
