https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103327
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Please post patches to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103326
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103325
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103324
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I'm usually running pieces that affect the area I am patching like vect.exp for
vectorizer stuff. Generally a smoke test would be dg-torture.exp (runs C and
C++ pieces) and execute.exp (C, ObjC, Go and For
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103322
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|galgel from spec2000 is now |[12 Regression] galgel from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103320
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|regression |target
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.0|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103321
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-19
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103317
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103317
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:09d462146b3107c665265b11ad925c61a91c6efb
commit r12-5393-g09d462146b3107c665265b11ad925c61a91c6efb
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103088
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 18 Nov 2021, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103088
>
> Aldy Hernandez changed:
>
>What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103321
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Vsevolod Livinskiy from comment #4)
> The same error can be triggered for X86.
> Here is the link to the Compiler Explorer: https://godbolt.org/z/8zMhfhs5o
>
> This reproducer was found with YA
tion_todo
/testing/gcc/gcc_src_master/gcc/passes.c:2049
0x10e901b execute_todo
/testing/gcc/gcc_src_master/gcc/passes.c:2096
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <https:/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103282
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Worked for me as of r12-5390-gd3152981f71eef1
I should say this was on x86_64.
And passing as of r12-5363 on aarch64-linux-gnu.
Is it failing for 32bit or 64bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103282
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Worked for me as of r12-5390-gd3152981f71eef1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103257
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103257
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:527e54a431473cc497204226a21f2831d2375e66
commit r12-5392-g527e54a431473cc497204226a21f2831d2375e66
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103314
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103252
--- Comment #13 from Hongtao.liu ---
>
> So for short live range reg, we may lose opportunity to allocate best
> regclass, maybe add peephole2 to handle those cases instead of tune RA.
No, r132 is also used as addr, but currently lra only add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103327
Bug ID: 103327
Summary: Do not search MINGW in the search dir
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103306
--- Comment #16 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #15)
> patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-November/584815.html
Thank you for the patch; it fixes non-bootstrap build for me. I didn't check
full bootst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 96121, which changed state.
Bug 96121 Summary: Uninitialized variable copying in member initialized list
not diagnosed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96121
What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96121
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2972
Bug 2972 depends on bug 19808, which changed state.
Bug 19808 Summary: miss a warning about uninitialized member usage in member
initializer list in constructor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19808
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96121
Bug 96121 depends on bug 19808, which changed state.
Bug 19808 Summary: miss a warning about uninitialized member usage in member
initializer list in constructor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19808
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34307
Bug 34307 depends on bug 19808, which changed state.
Bug 19808 Summary: miss a warning about uninitialized member usage in member
initializer list in constructor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19808
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 19808, which changed state.
Bug 19808 Summary: miss a warning about uninitialized member usage in member
initializer list in constructor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19808
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19808
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96121
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0790c8aacdfb4fd096aa580dae0fe49172c43ab2
commit r12-5391-g0790c8aacdfb4fd096aa580dae0fe49172c43ab2
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19808
--- Comment #50 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0790c8aacdfb4fd096aa580dae0fe49172c43ab2
commit r12-5391-g0790c8aacdfb4fd096aa580dae0fe49172c43ab2
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21678
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0790c8aacdfb4fd096aa580dae0fe49172c43ab2
commit r12-5391-g0790c8aacdfb4fd096aa580dae0fe49172c43ab2
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103326
Bug ID: 103326
Summary: constexpr crashing when uses with vector extensions
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103252
--- Comment #12 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Jason A. Donenfeld from comment #9)
> > When the mask registers are available for use, RA considers them and when
> > spilling to those is cheaper than to memory, it spills to them and not
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103100
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103317
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103314
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Fixes the problem and we should not run into the back and forth issue.
Oh and it only happens with this undefined (at runtime) code :).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103325
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I should note I noticed this while working on PR 103314.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103325
Bug ID: 103325
Summary: 1 << -1 is never reduced to a constant during gimple
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102543
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d3152981f71eef16e50246a94819c39ff1489c70
commit r12-5390-gd3152981f71eef16e50246a94819c39ff1489c70
Author: liuhongt
Date: Sat Oct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103314
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Simplified testcase:
int main() {
unsigned c = 0, d = c ? 1 ^ c ^ 1 >> (-1) : 0;
return c;
}
The problem is we get:
#3 0x00b5aa2d in fold_binary_loc(unsigned int, tree_code, tree_node*,
tree_no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103317
--- Comment #10 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> Created attachment 51834 [details]
> patch which I am testing
>
> This is the patch which I am testing which should get us back to where we
> were.
I can conf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103198
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:09c24fe42ff2cef3f3291f5a7540a5835c08430c
commit r12-5389-g09c24fe42ff2cef3f3291f5a7540a5835c08430c
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103324
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-18
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103321
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> I don't have SPEC CPU 2006 setup, can you attach the preprocessed source?
Also can you test if https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51834 fixes
the pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103317
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 51834
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51834&action=edit
patch which I am testing
This is the patch which I am testing which should get us back to where we were.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103321
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't have SPEC CPU 2006 setup, can you attach the preprocessed source?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98940
Bug 98940 depends on bug 103049, which changed state.
Bug 103049 Summary: [C++23] P0849R8 - auto(x): decay-copy in the language
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103049
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103049
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103049
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:93810fd673654db9ff16170624a6d36449eab241
commit r12-5386-g93810fd673654db9ff16170624a6d36449eab241
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103311
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103324
Bug ID: 103324
Summary: RFE: Add a `make quickcheck` or `make smoketest`
Makefile target to allow only running a portion of the
testsuite
Product: gcc
Version: 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87851
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98939
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51437
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103323
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103317
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103317
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
I will go look into this after a nap.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103317
--- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Hmm, I fixed one like this yesterday. Are you sure it is not fixed?
Yes, I built with a trunk from this morning and just verified it still ICEs
with a new check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94365
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103323
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103323
Bug ID: 103323
Summary: Front end simplifies sin although no header included
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98939
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Does that mean that code like this (from type_traits) needs to be fixed?
class __make_unsigned_selector_base
{
protected:
template struct _List { };
template
struct _List<_Tp, _Up...>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103282
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101329
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103088
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103246
--- Comment #25 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9d3f1435a348bece9e11787df982bd465db74ed8
commit r11-9248-g9d3f1435a348bece9e11787df982bd465db74ed8
Author: Jan Hubicka
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101329
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3535be6c6f440909798d1c78e862a657f7adaf63
commit r12-5384-g3535be6c6f440909798d1c78e862a657f7adaf63
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103317
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-cvs/2021-November/356905.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103321
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-cvs/2021-November/356905.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101180
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103317
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, I fixed one like this yesterday. Are you sure it is not fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103317
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103197
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So it seems to think that all registers in the preferred class,
GEN_OR_VSX_REGS,
are the same cost? They very much are not :-(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101180
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103322
Bug ID: 103322
Summary: galgel from spec2000 is now broken on x86_64 with
-Ofast -march=native -flto (on core)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103266
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c331a75d49b6043399f5ccce72a02ccf3b0ddc56
commit r12-5379-gc331a75d49b6043399f5ccce72a02ccf3b0ddc56
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Thu N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98939
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> class C {
> template struct _List;
>
> template struct S; // #1
>
> template
> struct S<_Sz, _List<_Uint, _UInts...>>; // #2
>
> static constexpr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103321
Bug ID: 103321
Summary: [12 regression] ICE at tree-ssa.c:1211 after r12-5300
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103311
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103311
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4f0a2f5a3ddb1024b885c066a18caae4d733bb6c
commit r12-5378-g4f0a2f5a3ddb1024b885c066a18caae4d733bb6c
Author: Tamar Christina
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103317
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner ---
A not too old trunk build didn't ICE, so this looks new. I'll bisect it to
find the bad commit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103266
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
I am testing
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-modref.c b/gcc/ipa-modref.c
index c94f0589d44..e5d2b11025a 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-modref.c
+++ b/gcc/ipa-modref.c
@@ -2033,10 +2033,7 @@ modref_eaf_analysis::merge_call_lhs_flag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103317
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103088
--- Comment #8 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #7)
> Could someone post the relevant configury bits used for the ppc64le case.
>
> I used:
>
> runcpu --config=myconfig -a validate --iterations=1 --ignore-erro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103319
--- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe ---
ah, incidentally, that patch is likely also a fix for 96517.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103088
--- Comment #7 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Could someone post the relevant configury bits used for the ppc64le case.
For example, I have:
OPTIMIZE= -O3 -m64 -mcpu=power9 -ffast-math -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops
-fvect-cost-model -mpopcntd -m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103254
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Macleod ---
This is a long sequence, made from the following pattern:
_156 = _155 & _147;
_157 = (int) _156;
j_158 = _157 & j_149;
_164 = (short int) j_158;
_165 = _164 & _156;
Since GORI doesn't yet cache
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103317
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103318
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103320
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103320
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103320
Bug ID: 103320
Summary: Spec 2017 benchmark roms_r fails on PowerPC for -Ofast
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103319
Bug ID: 103319
Summary: [coroutines] ICE in is_this_parameter, at
cp/semantics.c:10672
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
--- Comment #28 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2196a681d7810ad8b227bf983f38ba716620545e
commit r12-5377-g2196a681d7810ad8b227bf983f38ba716620545e
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Wed Oct 27 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103317
--- Comment #1 from Peter Bergner ---
I'll try and creduce the test case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103241
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
'-dA'
Annotate the assembler output with miscellaneous debugging
information.
It prints comments into the assembly, making the debug info in there readable
for humans.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103318
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89074
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ca243ada71656651a8753e88164a1f0f019be1c3
commit r12-5376-gca243ada71656651a8753e88164a1f0f019be1c3
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103318
Bug ID: 103318
Summary: Spec 2017 benchmark perlbench_r fails on PowerPC for
-Ofast and -O3, passes with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
1 - 100 of 182 matches
Mail list logo
