https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118562
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118633
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
IMO we can't have both - "early" optimized offload code and optimization that's
suited for the offload target. Instead we should somehow work towards
"offloading" (aka outlining) relevant parts before earl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116330
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Ke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118608
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118607
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118637
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |tree-optimization
Severity|no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118621
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
I tried to reproduce on Gentoo with our dev-perl/PDL package (which is a bit
outdated as we need to package the new split bits, I think) but couldn't.
I also tried to clone PDL and run the testsuite and that pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118623
--- Comment #12 from Hongtao Liu ---
1370Trying 35 -> 20:
1371 35: flags:CCC=cmp(zero_extract(r104:SI,0x1,r105:SI#0),0)
1372 REG_DEAD r104:SI
1373 REG_DEAD r105:SI
1374 20: pc={(flags:CCC!=0)?L26:pc}
1375 REG_BR_PROB 107374183
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118615
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #17)
> Created attachment 60260 [details]
> Patch that goes on top of r15-2810
>
> This fixes the LRA compare debug issues but I have no idea if it is correct.
Note
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118615
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60260
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60260&action=edit
Patch that goes on top of r15-2810
This fixes the LRA compare debug issues but I have no idea if it is correc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118615
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114291
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |gcov-profile
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116668
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118583
--- Comment #2 from Kishan Parmar ---
Thanks Richard, Workaround works for me!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118572
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118638
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118615
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compare-debug-failure
--- Comment #16 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118615
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60259
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60259&action=edit
Non-reduced testcase for compare debug issue
[apinski@xeond2 gcc]$ !./x
./xgcc -B. -fno-exceptions -fschedule
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118623
--- Comment #11 from Hongtao Liu ---
283(insn 8 7 9 2 (set (reg:SI 107)
284(const_int 1 [0x1])) "test.c":3:7 -1
285 (nil))
286(insn 9 8 10 2 (parallel [
287(set (reg:SI 106 [ e_7 ])
288(ashift:SI (reg:SI 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118638
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
I think it's going to be r14-4810-ge28869670c9879.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118514
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116668
--- Comment #5 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #4)
> I wonder if this should be closed?
Yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117188
--- Comment #4 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #3)
> I think this can be closed.
yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118103
--- Comment #4 from Li Pan ---
gcc-14 has the correct behavior and mostly some middle-end change I guess.
└─(11:39:07 on master⚑ ✭)──> riscv64-linux-gnu-gcc-14 --version
riscv64-linux-gnu-gcc-14 (Ubuntu 14.2.0-4ubuntu2~24.04) 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118103
--- Comment #3 from Li Pan ---
Interesting the test_example in a separate function other than main will have
the frm restore insn, but there will be no such frm in main function.
62 │ test_exampe:
63 │ frrma2
64 │ fsrmi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118103
--- Comment #2 from Li Pan ---
(In reply to Li Pan from comment #1)
> Ack, let me try to reproduce this.
Reproduced, the inlined compute delete the restore FRM somewhere, will take a
look into it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116668
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117188
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118103
Li Pan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pan2.li at intel dot com
--- Comment #1 from L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116234
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|needs-bisection
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118572
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:91fa9c15cc4fb9947e7e2f7990f7d5a58845d5cf
commit r15-7173-g91fa9c15cc4fb9947e7e2f7990f7d5a58845d5cf
Author: Alexandre Oliva
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118514
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3f05d70389f523cf53f9b8fdf56570e8a6ecdb8b
commit r15-7171-g3f05d70389f523cf53f9b8fdf56570e8a6ecdb8b
Author: Alexandre Oliva
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118638
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
I'll bisect.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117037
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
Do you mean you patched GCC, or that your C++ was bad? GCC shouldn't ICE even
on invalid C++ so we are still interested in preprocessed sources.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117037
--- Comment #5 from fujin zhao ---
It was my code that had an error, this error does not exist.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118638
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117037
fujin zhao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118638
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60258
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60258&action=edit
self contained testcase
Not exactly further reduced. BUT the IR on the gimple side is the same between
GCC 13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118638
--- Comment #1 from Yunbo Ni ---
(In reply to Yunbo Ni from comment #0)
> This code prints -1 at -O0/1/2/3 and 3 at -Os:
>
> ```c
> int printf(const char *, ...);
> int a;
> int b(int f) {
> int c = f ? 1 : 0, d = f ? 1 : 0, e = f ? 1 : 0;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118638
Bug ID: 118638
Summary: Miscompile with -Os and -O0/1/2/3
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118623
--- Comment #10 from Hongtao Liu ---
> > r12-7751-g919fbffef07555
>
> that might have just exposed a latent issue
Should be, the guilty commit just extent a splitter to handle reversed
condition, didn't see anything abnormal.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116234
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #5)
> Yep. Started with r15-1619-g3b9b8d6cfdf593. Bisecting for fix..
r15-6657-g405c99c17210a5, so latent again
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118637
Bug ID: 118637
Summary: gcc fails to optimize unsigned division by 2 to shift
right by 1
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116234
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117886
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 60257
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60257&action=edit
Cleaned up reproducer
I cleaned up the reproducer enough to compile, and was able to use this to
reproduce the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116234
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
I can bisect this one if you want?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116234
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> I can bisect this one if you want?
Both sides would be nice. I am suspecting it is related to the issue I am
debugging now too
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117886
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107430
Bug 107430 depends on bug 117602, which changed state.
Bug 117602 Summary: bogus error with nested lambda
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117602
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117602
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102610
Bug 102610 depends on bug 117602, which changed state.
Bug 117602 Summary: bogus error with nested lambda
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117602
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117602
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6d8a0e8b2cfb5c8997b378f230a4ccdbfacaee4d
commit r15-7169-g6d8a0e8b2cfb5c8997b378f230a4ccdbfacaee4d
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116336
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
I can still reproduce this on todays trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116234
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #2 from And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118636
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118571
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 60256
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60256&action=edit
Proposed final patch
This patch submitted for approval.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118636
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>so maybe it's universal enough
I don't think Solaris's linker accepts it. Nor does AIX ld. Nor HPUX's (yes
these targets are all supported still).
Apple's linkers might all but I am not 100% sure there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118636
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
--- Comment #1 from Andre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118636
Bug ID: 118636
Summary: `-Werror` and `-w` do not affect linker warnings, but
the docs say they should [docs bug?]
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118580
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It appears that the issue is solved with r15-7165-g3cef53a4d4ff44 .
Can you please check?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118613
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Status|ASSI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118634
--- Comment #2 from Phosit ---
When unrolling is forbidden by `#pragma GCC unroll 0` there is no warning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499
--- Comment #22 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #21)
> When doing x ** n in unsigned binary arithmetic, and x is an unsigned with k
> bits, and we do arithmetic modulo 2^k, then
>
> x ** n = x ** min (n, k)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499
--- Comment #21 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
When doing x ** n in unsigned binary arithmetic, and x is an unsigned with k
bits, and we do arithmetic modulo 2^k, then
x ** n = x ** min (n, k) (mod 2^k)
so we can immediately saturate the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118635
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
and yes I tested the trunk to see it works with -std=c++20 now unlike GCC
14.2.0 rejects it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118635
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118635
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/72cd15b20a887bed9b0b1f4196be99fe052247b4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118635
Bug ID: 118635
Summary: P2510R3 "Formatting pointers" is not available in
C++20
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115568
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118628
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118628
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8f6dd185d16dec8ca9351a754f0ece153f89d85c
commit r15-7166-g8f6dd185d16dec8ca9351a754f0ece153f89d85c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118613
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3cef53a4d4ff44a5b61284bb0e6977f7ba7b3aab
commit r15-7165-g3cef53a4d4ff44a5b61284bb0e6977f7ba7b3aab
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118634
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118634
Bug ID: 118634
Summary: [15 Regression] missed optimization leading to
maybe-uninitiallized warning
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: fa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118633
Bug ID: 118633
Summary: Early optimizations/transformations vs. heterogeneous
offloading compilation
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115363
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/llvm/llv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499
--- Comment #20 from Thomas Koenig ---
Right now, I am doing unsigned**unsigned. This is already a
bit larger than I originally thought. After this is committed,
we can still discuss how to extend it, I think.
There is actually an interesting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118626
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60254
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60254&action=edit
Reduced testcase
Note this reduced testcase is invalid in this case. I didn't try to reduce it
to a valid case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118632
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118632
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118360
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #4)
> AVR: PR118012 - Try to work around sick code from match.pd.
The patch above just tries to work around PR118012 / PR118360. It is by no
means a proper fix,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118631
--- Comment #4 from Jörg Brüggmann ---
Aha. Got it. Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118403
--- Comment #16 from Stephen Hemminger ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #15)
> (In reply to Stephen Hemminger from comment #14)
> > (In reply to Sam James from comment #13)
> > > (In reply to Stephen Hemminger from comment #12)
> > >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118632
Bug ID: 118632
Summary: 0 vs nullptr mixup in template
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118012
--- Comment #17 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #16)
> AVR: PR118012 - Try to work around sick code from match.pd.
The patch above just tries to work around PR118012 / PR118360. It is by no
means a proper fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118626
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118631
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The copy constructor is needed because of:
```
StringSet operator + ( const StringSet& stringSetA, const StringSet& stringSetB
) {
StringSet resultStringSet{ stringSetA };
resultStringSet.include(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118631
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118360
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0bb3223097e5ced4f9a13d18c6c65f2a9496437e
commit r15-7164-g0bb3223097e5ced4f9a13d18c6c65f2a9496437e
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118012
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0bb3223097e5ced4f9a13d18c6c65f2a9496437e
commit r15-7164-g0bb3223097e5ced4f9a13d18c6c65f2a9496437e
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118631
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Most likely you forgot a copy constructor. A default copy constructor will
point the new msets to the old msets_ .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118631
Bug ID: 118631
Summary: Public class member as const reference to protected
member
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118626
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|needs-source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114589
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118615
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
Just for the record here is the comparison failure:
```
make[3]: Leaving directory '/home/pinskia/src/upstream/gcc/objdir'
Comparing stages 2 and 3
Bootstrap comparison failure!
gcc/analyzer/region-model.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118630
Bug ID: 118630
Summary: [modules] ICE in sort_cluster when streaming
decltype(lambda) return type
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118620
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||c++-lambda
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80813
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2d55c0161562f96d2230cd132b494a5d06352a23
commit r15-7163-g2d55c0161562f96d2230cd132b494a5d06352a23
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Thu Ja
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118619
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118629
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60252
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60252&action=edit
Reduced testcase
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
