https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118489
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118508
Bug ID: 118508
Summary: 10% performance drop when enabling autofdo for
spec2017 554.roms_r
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118489
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-01-16
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118489
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2025-01-16 00:00:00 |
Target Milestone|15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118489
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118333
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 118333, which changed state.
Bug 118333 Summary: gcc/config/i386/i386-expand.cc:24871: Pointless condition ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118333
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115777
--- Comment #10 from Hongtao Liu ---
> That's probably the conservative answer for BB vectorization, for loop vect
> we know all those uses will be also in vector code. For BB vectorization
> there is currently no easly reliable check to ensur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115777
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao Liu ---
> in backend costing we do anticipate the vector construction to happen
> by loading from memory though, so we don't account for the extra
> GPR->xmm move penalty.
Yes, I saw something similar before and had
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118380
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118333
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1)
> (In reply to David Binderman from comment #0)
> > Static analyser cppcheck says:
> >
> > gcc/config/i386/i386-expand.cc:24871:35: warning: Identical condition
> > '
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118189
Bug ID: 118189
Summary: Weired vec_contruct of elements who's from continuous
memory
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118017
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118055
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao Liu ---
>
> Is it perhaps that the test is brittle; mostly target-specific despite being
> at the tree-level and that instead the scan-test should be a specific
> known-matching target list?
The testcase is used to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118055
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao Liu ---
I explained in the thread.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-December/671289.html
-
BTW arm ci reported 2 regressed testcase so I added
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr83403-1.c: Add --param max-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118021
Bug ID: 118021
Summary: [15 regression] ICE in parser
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117874
--- Comment #11 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> The mult_su3_an part is now resolved. See PR117888 for the rest.
Fixed by r15-6097-gee2f19b0937b5efc0b23c4319cbd4a38b27eac6e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117888
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117946
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org|unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117946
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao Liu ---
> Why class is changed to INDEX_GPR16 for r273
Note with -mapxf, ICE disappears
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117946
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao Liu ---
5024 Choosing alt 6 in insn 295: (0) ?jc (1) Yd {*movti_internal}
(sp_off=-128)
5025 Change to class INDEX_GPR16 for r273
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117946
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #5)
> (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #4)
> > The insn is generated by avoid_store_fowarding, and it is valid but failed
> > reload
>
> Reload want to find a insn t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117946
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #4)
> The insn is generated by avoid_store_fowarding, and it is valid but failed
> reload
Reload want to find a insn to move data from GPR to SSE_REGS but
*movti_internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117946
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu ---
The insn is generated by avoid_store_fowarding, and it is valid but failed
reload
170Store forwarding detected:
171From: (insn 24 23 25 2 (set (mem/c:SI (pl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117946
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |liuhongt at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117890
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117006
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|liuhongt at gcc do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117888
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> The question is how we should define innermost - consider
>
> - loop interchange
> - inlining of a function body with a loop into a loop
>
> the simplest appr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117888
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117006
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> > So if anything, one would need to decide this on something larger rather
> > than small testcases, say build the whol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117888
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao Liu ---
This is the case which failed the recogonize innermost correctly.
typedef unsigned short ggml_fp16_t;
static float table_f32_f16[1 << 16];
inline static float ggml_lookup_fp16_to_fp32(ggml_fp16_t f) {
un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117888
Bug ID: 117888
Summary: cunrolli doesn't accurately remember what's
"innermost"
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117860
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117006
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |liuhongt at gcc dot
gnu.org
Las
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117839
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80862
Bug 80862 depends on bug 73350, which changed state.
Bug 73350 Summary: AVX512: GCC optimizes away rounding flags
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73350
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73350
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 116675, which changed state.
Bug 116675 Summary: No blend constant permute for V8HImode with just SSE2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116675
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116675
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117823
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao Liu ---
> Whether it needs -ffast-math depends on how it behaves with respect to
> rounding I guess. If (float)bf16 * (float)bf16 + (float)bf16 * (float)bf16
> performs the float add without intermediate rounding for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117823
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao Liu ---
The vectorization maybe need ffast-math.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117823
Bug ID: 117823
Summary: sdot_prod pattern extended to floating point?
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117734
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116675
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #6)
> The test is broken:
>
> +UNRESOLVED: gcc.target/i386/pr116675.c scan-assembler-times pand 4
> +UNRESOLVED: gcc.target/i386/pr116675.c scan-assembler-times pandn 4
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115438
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao Liu ---
>
> This might in the end be fallout of different sinking?!
>
> One difference wrt SLP vs. non-SLP is that with SLP we are taking the
> initial value as the initial value with SLP while with non-SLP we
> ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115438
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao Liu ---
I only observed ~3% regression on ICX, the regressed one takes less
instructions but more backend bounds, caused lower IPC and slow down
performance.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117734
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao Liu ---
But there's a saturation inside pmaddubsw, not a simple dot_prod pattern.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117608
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> int i;
>
> void
> foo (void)
> {
> __builtin_prefetch (&i, 2, 0);
> }
>
> ICEs as well since that revision, and I think it actually ICEs on many
> targets as w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 116675, which changed state.
Bug 116675 Summary: No blend constant permute for V8HImode with just SSE2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116675
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116675
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113600
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 113600, which changed state.
Bug 113600 Summary: [14/15 regression] 525.x264_r run-time regresses by 8% with
PGO -Ofast -march=znver4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113600
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 113600, which changed state.
Bug 113600 Summary: [14/15 regression] 525.x264_r run-time regresses by 8% with
PGO -Ofast -march=znver4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113600
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117608
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao Liu ---
@hulin please take a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117562
--- Comment #10 from Hongtao Liu ---
>
> I do wonder about the usefulness of the memory alternative on the
> sse_movhlps pattern though, there's the sse_storehps pattern which
> also models the store part more precisely as V2SFmode. Is
> sse_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117562
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao Liu ---
> vec_unpacks_hi_v4sf create an unintialized (reg:V4SF 853), I guess it may
> confuse LRA to allocate a mem for it.
For simple case
void
foo (double* a, float* b, int n)
{
for (int i = 0; i != n; i++)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117562
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao Liu ---
> Huh. It looks like this is from a V4SF -> 2xV2DF extension via
> vec_unpack_{hi,lo}_expr.
>
> Originally this is
>
> (insn 1161 1160 1162 58 (set (reg:V4SF 853)
> (vec_select:V4SF (vec_concat:V8S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117542
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao Liu ---
> Yes, something like this should work. I suggest to polish up a patch
> with this also containing the backend pattern adjustments and post it
> for review. The alternative is a convert optab for vec_pack_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117697
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117542
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #2)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > It doesn't even unambiguously specify whether the mode is that of the source
> > or the destination. The original i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117562
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao Liu ---
My guess there's a lower-tripcount(< 128bit vector) hot loop,
avx512_two_epilogues only takes more cmp/jcc instructions but doesn't execute
any real vector instructions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117418
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117495
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117542
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> It doesn't even unambiguously specify whether the mode is that of the source
> or the destination. The original idea was of course that the size
> unambiguously
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117542
Bug ID: 117542
Summary: Missed loop vectorization for truncate from float to
__bf16.
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117304
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117438
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao Liu ---
I reproduce with 30% regression on CLX, there's more frontend-bound
with aligned case, it's uarch specific, will make it a uarch tune.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117416
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117438
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Mayshao-oc from comment #0)
> Created attachment 59530 [details]
> gcc -O1 loop.c
>
> Pass_align_tight_loops align the inner loop aggressively, this may cause
> significant performance regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117304
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu ---
$: grep AVX512F i386-builtin.def | grep -v EVEX512 | grep -e V8DI -e V8DF -e
V16SI -e V16SF -e V32HI -e V32HF -e V32BF -e V64QI
BDESC (OPTION_MASK_ISA_AVX512F, 0,
CODE_FOR_unspec_fix_truncv8dfv8si2_mask_roun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117438
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117416
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117407
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117416
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117416
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117323
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Note the reasoning for the difference in arguments between aarch64 and
> x86_64 is that x86_64 defines PUSH_ARGS_REVERSED to be 1.
Interesting define min/max as m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117323
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu ---
Another miss optimization is GCC failed to recognize max_expr for sum1, which
generates a lot pack/unpack code in the vectorizer
prephitmp_66 = (int) _8;
# DEBUG a => NULL
# DEBUG b => NULL
# DEBUG a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117318
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117301
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117323
Bug ID: 117323
Summary: GCC failed to optimize value / 128 to value >> 7 when
the range of value must be positive
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117318
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |liuhongt at gcc dot
gnu.org
E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117301
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao Liu ---
yes, new instructions are still under review for binutils and not landed on
Binutil trunk, but GCC check_effective_target_avx10_2 target with "old"
_mm256_mask_vpdpbssd_epi32.
The problem should be gone when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117240
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101017
--- Comment #11 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #10)
> Did this ever happen ?
>
> Similar test case gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx10_1-26.c
> still seems to cause a crash:
>
> testsuite $ ~/gcc/results/bin/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117232
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #0)
> This is expansion of PR 113609 which showed when I improved phiopt's factor
> operations to handle more than just 1 operand operations.
>
> New reduced testcase t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117232
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64700
Bug 64700 depends on bug 117232, which changed state.
Bug 117232 Summary: EQ/NE comparison between avx512 kmask and -1 can be
optimized with kxortest with checking CF when using cmov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117232
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117240
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |liuhongt at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117159
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117232
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |liuhongt at gcc dot
gnu.org
Las
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116940
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 117072, which changed state.
Bug 117072 Summary: [15 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.target/i386/cond_op_fma_{float,double,_Float16}-1.c since
r15-3509-gd34cda72098867
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117072
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117072
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115365
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117159
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao Liu ---
typedef __attribute__((__vector_size__ (4))) unsigned char W;
typedef __attribute__((__vector_size__ (64))) int V;
typedef __attribute__((__vector_size__ (64))) long long Vq;
W w;
V v;
Vq vq;
static inline W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117159
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |liuhongt at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117082
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117081
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao Liu ---
*** Bug 117082 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79786
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117116
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org|uros at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
1 - 100 of 455 matches
Mail list logo
