https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116518
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110819
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116868
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96945
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116518
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94294
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58483
--- Comment #22 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #19)
> With Jakub's __builtin_operator_new we now optimize out the code if main is
> renamed to something else. With main we know it is executed once and we
> keep destruct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109791
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116426
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Summary|[13/14/15 Regression] b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117604
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|MOVED |INVALID
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117604
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115771
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> > Fixed by r15-571-g1e0ae1f52741f7 on trunk which definitely isn't
> > backportable.
> >
> > Some additional notes:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115771
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> Fixed by r15-571-g1e0ae1f52741f7 on trunk which definitely isn't
> backportable.
>
> Some additional notes:
> * 8.5.0 works, 9.1.0 doesn't (broken by r9-5549-g8f10f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115771
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|needs-bisection
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117604
Bug ID: 117604
Summary: RISCV Generalized Reverse (grev, grevi, rev) are not
supported in gcc-14.1.0
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117467
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117603
Dimitar Dimitrov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117603
Bug ID: 117603
Summary: RISC-V: testsuite: Architecture string mutation is not
robust
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117602
Bug ID: 117602
Summary: bogus error with nested lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49330
--- Comment #38 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, something changed in GCC 14 The original testcase now works so does
the testcase in PR 93105 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49330
--- Comment #39 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #38)
> Hmm, something changed in GCC 14 The original testcase now works so
> does the testcase in PR 93105 .
Oh it was the fix for PR 113255 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117602
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
--- Comment #1 from Marek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117602
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52517
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
```
by the equivalent
M = ((unsigned long*)(B))[x/4];
```
Note that is not equivalent and would cause this to be undefined.
Only `M = *(unsigned long*)(B + x);` is well defined.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117601
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
looking into this slightly more, there needs to have a check on INTEGER_CST@1
if less than the size of the array if o is an array. (otherwise only allow 1).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117601
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-11-15
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117572
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
After adding a hack like:
```
(simplify
(minus (plus:c @2 (convert ADDR_EXPR@0)) (convert @1))
(if (tree_nop_conversion_p (type, TREE_TYPE (@0)))
(with { poly_int64 diff; }
(if (ptr_difference_const (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117601
Bug ID: 117601
Summary: Another missing optimization after rewrite of SCCP for
overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117600
Bug ID: 117600
Summary: [15 regression] libgcc arm build doesn't respect
--disable-werror
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117537
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
Thank you for the quick fix!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117574
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
For completeness: 9 started with r9-2287-g47ca20b4f69986 (i.e. we got better at
optimising and exposed it).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117574
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14/15 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117599
Bug ID: 117599
Summary: LoongArch support for BitInt
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117598
Ivan Zrno changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WORKSFORME |FIXED
--- Comment #7 from Ivan Zrno ---
Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117594
--- Comment #4 from Li Pan ---
I can reproduce this.
└─(07:29:53 on master⚑ ✭)──>
QEMU_CPU=rv64,vlen=128,rvv_ta_all_1s=true,rvv_ma_all_1s=true,v=true,vext_spec=v1.0
~/bin/qemu/bin/qemu-riscv64 test.elf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117591
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117598
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |WORKSFORME
--- Comment #8 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117574
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|6.5.0 |5.4.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117538
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dkm at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117598
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html#index-flto says
> To use the link-time optimizer, -flto and optimization options should be
> specified at compile time and during the final link. It is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117574
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> ```
> $ /tmp/gcc-pfx/bin/gcc /tmp/a.c -o /tmp/a -O2 -fwrapv && /tmp/a
> 0
> $ /tmp/gcc-pfx/bin/gcc /tmp/a2.c -o /tmp/a -O2 -fwrapv && /tmp/a
> 0
> ```
>
> What am I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117598
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
```
/usr/bin/cmake -S/tmp/files -B/tmp/files --check-build-system
CMakeFiles/Makefile.cmake 0
/usr/bin/cmake -E cmake_progress_start /tmp/files/CMakeFiles
/tmp/files//CMakeFiles/progress.marks
make -f CMakeFile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117574
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Confirmed.
>
> You can hit the bug in GCC 7/8 by `s/c = 1/c = -1/`.
I don't see it with 7.4.1 20191114 when bisecting with either of the files.
/tmp/a.c:
```
int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117598
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117598
--- Comment #3 from Ivan Zrno ---
(In reply to Ivan Zrno from comment #2)
> Created attachment 59601 [details]
> example project cmake and main.cpp
I have attached a simple CMakeLists.txt and main.cpp file. When executing a
clean CMake build (c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117598
--- Comment #2 from Ivan Zrno ---
Created attachment 59601
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59601&action=edit
example project cmake and main.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117598
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117598
Bug ID: 117598
Summary: -fstack-usage not working with -flto (regression?)
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
Hi,
Could you help me confirm whether the situation I summarized in
https://gist.github.com/SchrodingerZhu/84a334f8666b567800624446d354b568#file-gimple-c-L4
is a bug for GCCJIT or not? Once confirmed, I can try to file it to tracker if
needed.
Thanks!
Yifan
Schrodinger ZHU Yifan, Ph.D. Stu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117474
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've created meta-bug pr117597 to track issues related to excessive memory
usage so that this one is not lost.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117597
Bug ID: 117597
Summary: [meta-bug] excessive memory usage by gfortran frontend
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117538
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
ht
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104819
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f70c1d517e09c4dde421774a8cec591ca3c479a0
commit r15-5295-gf70c1d517e09c4dde421774a8cec591ca3c479a0
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117548
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117538
--- Comment #2 from simon at pushface dot org ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #1)
> https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/A4C571BE-67E5-4AF6-9BCB-
> f3479216a...@pushface.org/
Thanks, I was just about to link that myself
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117548
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE when redeclaring|[15 regression] ICE when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56504
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117594
--- Comment #3 from Patrick O'Neill ---
Yep 36 looks correct but I get a zero for -O3:
> /scratch/tc-testing/tc-compiler-fuzz-trunk/build-gcv/bin/riscv64-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc
> -march=rv64gcv -O3 red.c -o user-config.out -fno-strict-aliasing
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117594
--- Comment #2 from Robin Dapp ---
What's the expected output of the latter test case?
I'm seeing 36 no matter what I try, -O3, -O2 without 'v', etc.
Even with an x86 GCC.
And, looking at the loop
for (unsigned j = 0; j < (z[i] ?: 10); j +=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113934
Bug 113934 depends on bug 117191, which changed state.
Bug 117191 Summary: [avr][dse2][lra] wrong dead store elimination
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117191
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117191
Denis Chertykov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107067
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117191
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Denis Chertykov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fe1486e118d72d660284af43cb739e20d094b585
commit r15-5293-gfe1486e118d72d660284af43cb739e20d094b585
Author: Denis Chertykov
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117592
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-11-14
Summary|sparc sup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117596
Bug ID: 117596
Summary: avr support for BitInt
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ABI
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107067
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116781
Denis Chertykov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||denisc at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
sion algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 15.0.0 20241114 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114985
--- Comment #36 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:012f5a22bac26a898ab66655965b07ac23201fdd
commit r15-5291-g012f5a22bac26a898ab66655965b07ac23201fdd
Author: Martin Jambor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117548
--- Comment #2 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 59599
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59599&action=edit
patch
Tentative patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117594
--- Comment #1 from Patrick O'Neill ---
Testcase that doesn't underflow:
unsigned a;
short b, d, e;
long long c;
int main() {
short h = d;
short *z = &h;
for (_Bool i = 0; i < 1; i = 1)
for (unsigned j = 0; j < (z[i] ?: 10); j += 3) {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117594
Bug ID: 117594
Summary: [15] RISC-V: Miscompile at -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117587
Bug ID: 117587
Summary: BPF support for BitInt
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ABI
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117483
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117593
Bug ID: 117593
Summary: amdgcn support for BitInt
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ABI
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117591
Bug ID: 117591
Summary: sh support for BitInt
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ABI
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117589
Bug ID: 117589
Summary: hppa support for BitInt
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ABI
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117592
Bug ID: 117592
Summary: sh support for BitInt
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ABI
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117590
Bug ID: 117590
Summary: nvptx support for BitInt
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ABI
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117588
Bug ID: 117588
Summary: m68k support for BitInt
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ABI
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117586
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117476
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117586
Bug ID: 117586
Summary: s390{,x} ABI for BitInt needs to be done
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117584
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117548
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117583
Bug ID: 117583
Summary: big-endian aarch64 BitInt support
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ABI
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #117 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note I am opening a bug report per target for BitInt support and linking to PR
117580 . e.g. PR 117581 for RISCV, PR 117582 for arm, PR 117583 for big-endian
aarch64 and PR 117584 for PPC.
I think this bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117585
Bug ID: 117585
Summary: IA64 BitInt support
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ABI
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117584
Bug ID: 117584
Summary: PowerPC ABI for BitInt needs to be done
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ABI
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117582
Bug ID: 117582
Summary: arm implementation of _BitInt
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ABI
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117581
Bug ID: 117581
Summary: Riscv support for _BitInt
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ABI
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117580
Bug ID: 117580
Summary: [meta-bug] Tagets should have a defined _BitInt ABI
and implement that ABI
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: met
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117578
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|cxa_demangle cannot deal|demangler does not handle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105654
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
```
...
get_bool(_Bool *out);
union __attribute__((transparent_union)) some_pointer {
void *as_void_ptr;
_Bool* as_bool_ptr;
};
void generic_get(union some_pointer);
static typeof(generic_get) *ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117572
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> probably. You should be able to write small testcases doing the integer
> conversions manually btw.
Simplified testcase then:
```
typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116507
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #2)
> Created attachment 59597 [details]
> ugly testcase failing in {*movhi_aarch64}
>
> I am not creating a separate PR for this, since the testcase is quite long,
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113781
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112524
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117370
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7828dc070510f8f5c06765858815fa6e5d2d1ec6
commit r15-5255-g7828dc070510f8f5c06765858815fa6e5d2d1ec6
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Thu N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116253
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 59598
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59598&action=edit
Mockup showing hierarchy with box-drawing lines/curves
I put together this mockup of another way of presenting
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
