https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115362
--- Comment #13 from Jon Daniel ---
This bug is triggered by -O0 optimization level flag.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115365
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115364
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115363
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115362
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-06
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
--- Comment #13 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #12)
> > since we don't care about overflow here, it looks like the stripping should
> > be recursive as long as it's a NOP expression between two integral typ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115355
--- Comment #9 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #7)
> The test fails when setToIdentityBAD's index var is unsigned int. It passes
> when using unsigned long long, unsigned long, unsigned short and unsigned
> char. Whe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115359
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115358
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115355
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
>
> --- Comment #11 from Tamar Christina ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115367
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Niklas Hambüchen from comment #0)
> Those docs sound like the behaviour is nice "runtime-dynamic" when in fact
> it is fixed across the process's liftime, and based on ultra-slow rolling
> avera
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43618
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43618
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115355
--- Comment #8 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #5)
> FYI, fails for me with gcc 12 and later and works with gcc 11. It also
> fails with -O3 -mcpu=power10.
Thanks for the information, bisection shows r12-4496 is the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115365
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fcfce55c85f842ed843cbc4aabe744c6a004dead
commit r15-1050-gfcfce55c85f842ed843cbc4aabe744c6a004dead
Author: liuhongt
Date: Thu Jun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115354
--- Comment #3 from Angus Gratton ---
Sorry, my notes about LTO builds look like they were wrong.
MicroPython LTO builds with -Os -fno-tree-sra seem to consistently reduce code
size as well, for both the "before" and "after" GCC versions, inclu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115354
--- Comment #2 from Angus Gratton ---
Thanks Richard, that's very helpful context (I don't quite have my head around
SRA to be honest!)
For non-LTO MicroPython builds (mostly C, no C++), building with -Os
-fno-tree-sra has almost no impact (for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115367
Bug ID: 115367
Summary: The implementation of OMP_DYNAMIC is not dynamic
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111567
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-06
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115366
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Summary|Missing optimzat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115365
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao Liu ---
pr100927.c.349r.final:(fix:SI (reg:SF 32 0 [120])))
"../../gcc/intel-innersource/pr115365/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr100927.c":12:10
428 {*fix_truncsfsi2_p8}
pr100927.c.349r.final: (expr_list:REG_EQUIV
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98909
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note this is very similar to PR 112104, in that `~a` can be treated as `a ^
-1`.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114428
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114428
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:961dd0d635217c703a38c48903981e0d60962546
commit r15-1048-g961dd0d635217c703a38c48903981e0d60962546
Author: liuhongt
Date: Fri Apr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114428
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7876cde25cbd2f026a0ae488e5263e72f8e9bfa0
commit r15-1047-g7876cde25cbd2f026a0ae488e5263e72f8e9bfa0
Author: liuhongt
Date: Fri Apr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115366
Bug ID: 115366
Summary: Missing optimzation: fold `return (bool)(((a / 8) * 4)
<< f)` to `return (bool)(a / 8)`
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115351
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |roger at
nextmovesoftware dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115362
--- Comment #11 from Jon Daniel ---
g++ output:
dot_product stdx::reduce: -16.00
dot_product_mm_dp_ps: -16.00
determinant: dot_product: 717.00
determinant: submatrices: -717.00
clang++ output:
dot_product stdx::reduce: -16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115362
Jon Daniel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58364|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115362
Jon Daniel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58363|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115362
Jon Daniel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58362|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115362
--- Comment #7 from Jon Daniel ---
sign of determinant result using the dot product differs from clang++ generated
binary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115362
Jon Daniel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58358|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115355
--- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner ---
The test fails when setToIdentityBAD's index var is unsigned int. It passes
when using unsigned long long, unsigned long, unsigned short and unsigned char.
When using unsigned long long/unsigned long, we d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115355
--- Comment #6 from Peter Bergner ---
Created attachment 58361
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58361&action=edit
setToIdentityBAD-char.s
Code generated for setToIdentityBAD.c when using unsigned char for the index
variable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112600
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115365
Bug ID: 115365
Summary: New test case gcc.dg/pr100927.c from
r15-1022-gb05288d1f1e4b6 fails
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115241
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
--- Comment #11 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> I think the question is why IVOPTs ends up using both the signed and
> unsigned variant of the same IV instead of expressing all uses of both with
> one IV?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115364
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
Summary|ICE-on-invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115362
--- Comment #5 from Jon Daniel ---
Created attachment 58360
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58360&action=edit
dotsimd assembly output with dot only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115362
--- Comment #4 from Jon Daniel ---
Created attachment 58359
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58359&action=edit
dotsimd assembly output with dot_sse only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115364
Bug ID: 115364
Summary: ICE-on-invalid when calling non-const template member
on const object
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115363
Bug ID: 115363
Summary: Missing loop vectorization due to loop bound load not
being pulled out
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115362
--- Comment #3 from Jon Daniel ---
Created attachment 58358
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58358&action=edit
compilable testcase
Compile:
g++ -march=native -mfpmath=sse -mveclibabi=svml -O3 -std=gnu++26 dotsimd.cpp -o
dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54013
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||115130
--- Comment #4 from Tamar Chris
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54013
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think for SVE(2?) this could be vectorized using the fault first case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115349
--- Comment #2 from Jack Perry ---
Sorry, that's what I mean by "crash":
```
raised CONSTRAINT_ERROR : intvec.adb:14 range check failed
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115362
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Component|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115362
--- Comment #1 from Jon Daniel ---
the generated code should be similar to the following using __m128 as
FIRST/OTHER type for floating point.
inline constexpr uint8_t mask4dp(size_t n)
{
switch(n)
{
case 1: retur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111376
--- Comment #5 from YunQiang Su ---
I copy the RTL pattern from RISC-V, and it seems work
```
--- a/gcc/config/mips/mips.md
+++ b/gcc/config/mips/mips.md
@@ -6253,6 +6253,40 @@ (define_insn "*branch_bit_inverted"
}
[(set_attr "type"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115362
Bug ID: 115362
Summary: fixed_size_simd dot product recognition not working
for stdx::reduce
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103949
frankhb1989 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||frankhb1989 at gmail dot c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115355
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.4
Summary|PPCLE: Auto-vec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115361
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
GetKey() is the temporary in all cases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88545
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115361
Bug ID: 115361
Summary: "possibly dangling reference to a temporary" when
object is_empty
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115356
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-05
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115360
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115360
Bug ID: 115360
Summary: cmse_nonsecure_call wrapper missing STT_FUNCTION
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115355
--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner ---
FYI, fails for me with gcc 12 and later and works with gcc 11. It also fails
with -O3 -mcpu=power10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111658
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115359
Bug ID: 115359
Summary: ICE in warn_types_mismatch: lto1: internal compiler
error: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115355
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108678
Evgeny Karpov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Evgeny.Karpov at microsoft dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87589
--- Comment #12 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Sure, we can do that patch for now. Thanks. unsupported is fine too.
Let's not close the bug, though. The real fix is to not put very large objects
on the stack--we don't want to do that for split-sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115083
Evgeny Karpov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Evgeny.Karpov at microsoft dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115342
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Wilco Dijkstra :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d7cbcfe7c33645eaf95f175f19884d443817857b
commit r15-1036-gd7cbcfe7c33645eaf95f175f19884d443817857b
Author: Wilco Dijkstra
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115358
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note this is not related to NSDMI nor related to use of STR in a non-complete
type context as shown by:
```
template
void foo(const int (&data)[N]) {}
template
struct Bar
{
static constexpr int STR[]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115358
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|template argument |[13/14/15 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115355
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110137
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka ---
> As pointed out in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035#c13 ,
> gcc
> already assume operator new's retuned pointer cannot alias any existing
> pointer. So no change is needed there.
Seems yo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115357
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115358
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
*** Bug 115357 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87589
--- Comment #11 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 58357
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58357&action=edit
Proposed patch
Wouldn't the attached patch be TRT then?
Btw., ISTM that this should be unsupported instead of u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115358
--- Comment #2 from dongkyun.s at samsung dot com ---
This might be related with https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106649
applied on GCC-13 but latest clang can build this example though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115358
--- Comment #1 from dongkyun.s at samsung dot com ---
Created attachment 58356
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58356&action=edit
example code
example code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115358
Bug ID: 115358
Summary: template argument deduction/substitution failed on
lambda function
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115357
Bug ID: 115357
Summary: template argument deduction/substitution failed on
lambda function
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115355
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64le
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115356
Bug ID: 115356
Summary: not a constant expression can be used as non-type
template argument inside requires expression
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115353
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-05
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113357
--- Comment #13 from Mikael Pettersson ---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #9)
> (In reply to Manolis Tsamis from comment #8)
> > Created attachment 58335 [details]
> > Do not modify live_out registers
> >
> > After looking again at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98678
--- Comment #9 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 58355
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58355&action=edit
Proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98678
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> This test is a bit tricky. The whole point is to check that performance of one
> operation is acceptable compared to a baseline. But the defi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115355
--- Comment #1 from Jens Seifert ---
Same issue with gcc 13.2.1
A test case:
>
$ ls
incdir/ moddir/ srcdir/
$ ls incdir/
$ ls moddir/
$ ls srcdir/
modtest.F90
$ cat srcdir/modtest.F90
module modtest
integer a
end module
program main
use modtest
end
$ gfortran --version
GNU Fortran (GCC) 14.1.1 20240522 (Red Hat 14.1.1-4)
Copyright (C) 2024 Free Soft
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115349
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-05
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111376
--- Comment #4 from YunQiang Su ---
Ohh, RISC-V has solved this problem in recent release.
So we can just do similar work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115355
Bug ID: 115355
Summary: PPCLE: Auto-vectorization creates wrong code for
Power9
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
I think the question is why IVOPTs ends up using both the signed and unsigned
variant of the same IV instead of expressing all uses of both with one IV?
That's where I'd look into.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90068
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #3 from Andre Ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90068
--- Comment #2 from Andre Vehreschild ---
Created attachment 58354
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58354&action=edit
Add final blocks to free temp. memory.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
--- Comment #9 from Tamar Christina ---
It's taken me a bit of time to track down all the reasons for the speedup with
the earlier patch.
This comes from two parts:
1. Signed IVs don't get simplified. Due to possible UB with signed overflows
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114532
--- Comment #11 from David Brown ---
(In reply to Zhaohaifeng from comment #8)
> (In reply to David Brown from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #6)
> > Anyway, I cannot see any reason while -fno-common should result in the
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115352
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
Target|x86_64-pc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114532
--- Comment #10 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Anyway if you really require a specific order of some data you need to either
use -fno-toplevel-reorder, or group the data with a struct or linker script
explicitly.
Relying on any implicit behavior like -fcom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114532
--- Comment #9 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Then will -fno-toplevel-reorder help?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88545
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, but it's only a missed-optimization bug so there are much higher
priorities.
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
