https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98341
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.5|12.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 97984, which changed state.
Bug 97984 Summary: [11 Regression] Worse code for -O3 than -O2 on aarch64
vector multiply-add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97984
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97968
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] Unnecessary |[12 Regression] Unnecessary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96373
--- Comment #27 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #25)
> (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #24)
>
> > OK, thanks for the comments, I'll mark PR108977 as won't fix then.
> It would be more normal to mark it as fixed,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96109
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95381
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98495
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101926
Bug 101926 depends on bug 90204, which changed state.
Bug 90204 Summary: [11 Regression] C code is optimized worse than C++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90204
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98005
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90204
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.5.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83782
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.5|12.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85964
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.5.0
Target Milestone|11.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51469
Bug 51469 depends on bug 83782, which changed state.
Bug 83782 Summary: [11 Regression] Inconsistent address for hidden ifunc in a
shared library
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83782
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 78993, which changed state.
Bug 78993 Summary: [11 Regression] False positive from -Wmaybe-uninitialized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78993
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78993
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|11.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.5.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98384
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.5|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98738
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.5|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100073
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.5|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115998
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The add 8 to the sp before the jump to g says the return address on the stack
now belongs to g's stack and it is g responsible to realign the stack as
needed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115998
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115068
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Kito Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:937713a5235bf9a9b8960635315882e8cee2706e
commit r14-10472-g937713a5235bf9a9b8960635315882e8cee2706e
Author: Robin Dapp
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115456
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Kito Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4db38759dcae7426ea5ce4432afe97bdd2d87ac8
commit r14-10467-g4db38759dcae7426ea5ce4432afe97bdd2d87ac8
Author: Pan Li
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115456
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Kito Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:87346ed74cc069d133918e28761fa8ef3c8ec874
commit r14-10466-g87346ed74cc069d133918e28761fa8ef3c8ec874
Author: Pan Li
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115994
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115993
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
It is even simpler, you have to consider arity in addition to the number of
operations.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115990
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115997
Bug ID: 115997
Summary: Findloc does not find the result of a function with a
deferred-length character return value
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115996
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115996
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
(i.e. it's fine if this is WONTFIX, it's not that interesting)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115951
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-07-19
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115994
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao Liu ---
Also in vect_recog_sat_trunc_pattern
4700 tree v_itype = get_vectype_for_scalar_type (vinfo, itype);
4701 tree v_otype = get_vectype_for_scalar_type (vinfo, otype);
4702 internal_fn fn = IFN_S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115964
--- Comment #4 from Jason Liam ---
@corentinjabot
Note that
```
void j(this const C);
void j() const ;
```
is still invalid.
Only
```
void f(this C );
void f(C);
```
is valid.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115995
Bug ID: 115995
Summary: RISC-V: Can't generate portable RVV code for
rv64gcv_zvl512b
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115793
--- Comment #3 from Bi6c ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #2)
> Hmm I remember there's an opening bug report for this but I cannot find it...
Is this considered a duplicated bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115994
Bug ID: 115994
Summary: Vectorizer failed to do vectorizaton for .sat_trunc
when nunits_in / nunits_out > 2
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115993
Bug ID: 115993
Summary: `((A&B)^C)^B` or `(~A & B) ^ C` is more canonical
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115991
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113131
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
```
int f(int A, int B, int C)
{
return ((A&B)^C)|B; // C|B
}
int f1(int A, int B, int C)
{
return ((A|B)^C)|B; // (C^A)|B
}
int f2(int A, int B, int C)
{
return ((A^B)^C)|B; // (C^A)|B
}
int f3(i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115459
--- Comment #9 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Ditto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115863
--- Comment #19 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pan Li :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:02cc8494745c4235890ad58e93b5acce5a89a775
commit r15-2149-g02cc8494745c4235890ad58e93b5acce5a89a775
Author: Pan Li
Date: Thu Jul 18 20:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115991
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #6)
> The ICE bisects to r15-1945-g9d20529d94b232. The ivopts issue needs to be
> done still.
Note this is basically the same issue as PR 115881 except it could be fixed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115991
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15 Regression] ICE on |[15 Regression] ICE on
|l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115991
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the testcase in PR 115992 also produces the same broken IV-OPTS even on
aarch64 this time around.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115988
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115049
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||15.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115988
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115992
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115991
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 115992 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115992
Bug ID: 115992
Summary: [15 regression] ICE when building linux-6.9.10 (RTL
check: expected code 'reg', have 'subreg' in
rhs_regno, at rtl.h:1934)
Product: gcc
V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115991
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
It is ok on aarch64:
ivtmp.16_6 = (unsigned long) &hdr;
I didn't look into why x86 choices unsigned int and why aarch64 choises
unsigned long though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115991
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #2 from And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115991
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29834
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115913
--- Comment #8 from Lewis Hyatt ---
I think they are for different things, push_options/pop_options is for saving
and restoring the command line flags that get implied from switching
optimization levels or target pragmas, while diagnostic pragma
--disable-bootstrap --disable-lto --disable-libsanitizer --enable-languages=c
CFLAGS='-O1 -g0' CXXFLAGS='-O1 -g0' LDFLAGS='-O1 -g0'
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 15.0.0 20240718 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115913
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
The bigger question should `GCC pop_options` also pop the diagnostic option
changes too? or is that only done with `GCC diagnostic pop`.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115913
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lhyatt at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115983
--- Comment #3 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Oops, sorry, I had to hurry and closed the laptop. I didn't think that the
issue got already submitted. Here is the reproducer.
gfortran -c state_matrices.f90
state_matrices.f90:76:23:
76 | t2 = t3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115983
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 58703
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58703&action=edit
Reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112626
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
For non wrapping case:
#define func(opname,op) int abs##opname (int a) { return __builtin_abs(a) op a;
}
func(le,<=) // a >= 0
func(lt,<) // false
func(ge,>=) // true
func(gt,>) // a < 0
func(eq,==) // a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107181
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
Thanks Peter!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115040
--- Comment #9 from AK ---
Thanks for merging the patch!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107181
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115964
--- Comment #3 from Jason Liam ---
(In reply to corentinjabot from comment #2)
> This is valid per https://eel.is/c++draft/basic.scope.scope#4.4
No you've misread your quoted reference. The program is ill formed as explained
in the given thread
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104688
--- Comment #39 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9846b0916c1a9b9f3e9df4657670ef4419617134
commit r15-2147-g9846b0916c1a9b9f3e9df4657670ef4419617134
Author: mayshao
Date: Thu Jul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115964
corentinjabot at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||corentinjabot at gmail d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110343
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've posted https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-July/657583.html
I don't think we should change the raw string handling for C23, because unlike
C++26 they didn't add the $@` chars to the basic ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115990
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/alpine.lnx.2.00.1005251143560.1...@zhemvz.fhfr.qr/
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/alpine.lnx.2.00.1005251147450.1...@zhemvz.fhfr.qr/
Fortran enabling -fno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115987
--- Comment #22 from Dan Urosu ---
Thank you for your help and explanations!
For now, I found an acceptable solution for my real project.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115990
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/alpine.lnx.2.00.1005211345180.1...@zhemvz.fhfr.qr/
The discussion when the patch was posted.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115990
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc/alpine.lnx.2.00.1005061613520.1...@zhemvz.fhfr.qr/
is the original discussion about adding -Ofast.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103115
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115987
--- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If you enable optimization then it does warn for that case:
loc.cc: In function 'int main(int, char**)':
loc.cc:44:9: warning: using a dangling pointer to 'r1' [-Wdangling-pointer=]
44 | printf("Unw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115987
--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Dan Urosu from comment #19)
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #18)
> > But is unwrap_1 called in such a way that 'r' binds to a temporary?
The answer is no, it's being called with an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58074
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85723
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108769
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58074
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9690fb3a43e5cf26a5fb853283d4200df312a640
commit r15-2146-g9690fb3a43e5cf26a5fb853283d4200df312a640
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115522
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9690fb3a43e5cf26a5fb853283d4200df312a640
commit r15-2146-g9690fb3a43e5cf26a5fb853283d4200df312a640
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108769
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9690fb3a43e5cf26a5fb853283d4200df312a640
commit r15-2146-g9690fb3a43e5cf26a5fb853283d4200df312a640
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85723
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9690fb3a43e5cf26a5fb853283d4200df312a640
commit r15-2146-g9690fb3a43e5cf26a5fb853283d4200df312a640
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115990
--- Comment #6 from Aaron Ballman ---
Thank you for the feedback btw!
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Aaron Ballman from comment #3).
> > >
> > > People will never read the documentation either way anyways.
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115990
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-14.1.0/gcc/Optimize-Options.html#index-Ofast
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115990
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Aaron Ballman from comment #3).
> >
> > People will never read the documentation either way anyways.
>
> Agreed, that's part of why we're deprecating.
That is a real bad excuse really.
Also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103115
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58695|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115990
--- Comment #3 from Aaron Ballman ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I don't think it should be deprecated or removed. It still has its uses.
Can you explain what those uses are and why they're not served by a more
explicit comma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115990
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FloatingPointMath
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115990
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't think it should be deprecated or removed. It still has its uses.
Documentation is clear too.
We just fixed some documentation about the flags being enabled by -Ofast too.
People will never read th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110343
--- Comment #10 from Ed Smith-Rowland ---
Sorry I was out for a while.
I was trying to figure out if there was some table of allowed characters we
should use. Also, C23 needs this too IIUC and I was wondering if we should
coordinate.
It looks l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115990
Bug ID: 115990
Summary: Consider deprecating -Ofast
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: driver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115987
--- Comment #19 from Dan Urosu ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #18)
> But is unwrap_1 called in such a way that 'r' binds to a temporary?
Did you mean 'u' binds to a temporary?
In this case r1 is a temporary object and a reference
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115987
--- Comment #18 from Marek Polacek ---
But is unwrap_1 called in such a way that 'r' binds to a temporary?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97367
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97367
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Peter Bergner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6962835bca3e6bef0f6ceae84a7814138b08b8a5
commit r15-2144-g6962835bca3e6bef0f6ceae84a7814138b08b8a5
Author: René Rebe
Date: Fri J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115989
Bug ID: 115989
Summary: [15 regression]
libgomp.oacc-fortran/privatized-ref-2.f90 fails after
r15-2135-gc3aa339ea50f05
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115987
--- Comment #17 from Dan Urosu ---
I just tried something after you explained how this warning works.
The most common cause of a real dangling ref is not caught unfortunately.
If you replace the unwrap_1 impl with the below you get no warning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115987
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115988
Bug ID: 115988
Summary: New test case gcc.target/powerpc/pr114759-3.c from
r15-2081-g6f2bab9b5d1ce1 fails on BE
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115983
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
1 - 100 of 210 matches
Mail list logo
