https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82973
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #5 from Marti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83477
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This goes wrong during dom2. Before that we have still correct:
[local count: 1073741825]:
if (q5_4(D) != 0)
goto ; [50.00%]
else
goto ; [50.00%]
[local count: 536870912]:
[local count
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83387
--- Comment #10 from sh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: sh
Date: Tue Dec 19 08:16:34 2017
New Revision: 255809
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255809&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
RTEMS/PowerPC: Remove 64-bit soft-float multilib
gcc/
PR tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83479
Bug ID: 83479
Summary: Register spilling in AVX code
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83329
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83387
--- Comment #11 from sh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: sh
Date: Tue Dec 19 08:20:05 2017
New Revision: 255810
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255810&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
RTEMS/PowerPC: Remove 64-bit soft-float multilib
gcc/
PR tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83479
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
Here is clang 5.0 output, it is also shorted than gcc one (213 lines, gcc
produced 247).
test(double const (*) [8]): # @test(double const (*) [8])
vmovapd ymm3, ymmword ptr [rdi + 64]
vmovapd ymm4, ym
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83387
--- Comment #12 from Sebastian Huber ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #9)
[...]
> Here, you can see that on ELFv2, we always assume HW FP regs are avialable,
> because we're forcing usage of HW FP registers (FP_ARG_RETURN, ie, f1, aka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83480
Bug ID: 83480
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in create_block_for_bookkeeping, at
sel-sched.c:4557 on 32-bit BE powerpc target
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83478
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83477
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
It's another VR_UNDEFINED sneaking through.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83465
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66205
--- Comment #13 from Arnaud Charlet ---
Author: charlet
Date: Tue Dec 19 08:43:49 2017
New Revision: 255811
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255811&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/66205
* bindgen.adb (Gen_AdaFinal): Revert previous cha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83477
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I see it. Fix spinning while I sleep.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66205
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||charlet at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80520
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83454
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83438
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83436
--- Comment #10 from Daan van Vugt ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #8)
> Thanks. Can you add the -v option to the above command line
> and report the output (up to the ld line)? Do you have
> more than one version of gfortran install
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79490
--- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Dec 19 09:26:39 2017
New Revision: 255812
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255812&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-19 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/79490
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79490
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81842
--- Comment #14 from igor.v.tsimbalist at intel dot com ---
The new option is needed to support two cases:
1. Compilation of ucontext functions inside glibc. To have glibc itself be
CET compatible all files comprises the library has to be CET co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83055
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
What's strange that even w/o -fprofile-generate function
symbol_table::create_edge creates edges with count that's 'estimated locally'.
That's looks for me suspicious.
Honza?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71834
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83481
Bug ID: 83481
Summary: ICE in const-ref structured bindings.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83125
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83051
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
*** Bug 83125 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81842
--- Comment #15 from Florian Weimer ---
This is all very strange.
How have extended makecontext for x86 AVX2/AVX-512 support? The CPU context
needs to be stored somewhere, after all.
I find it difficult to believe that there is no space left a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66205
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |WONTFIX
--- Comment #15 from Eric Botcaz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83116
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Dec 19 10:02:48 2017
New Revision: 255813
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255813&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/83116
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_call_expression):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83116
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83482
Bug ID: 83482
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82264
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fiesh at zefix dot tv
--- Comment #8 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83482
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82404
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Antony Polukhin from comment #10)
> Do we need a autotest on that to make sure that cmp won't appear again?
Yes, there's patch request:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-12/msg01228.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83452
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42903|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81842
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #15)
> I find it difficult to believe that there is no space left anyway to store
> the shadow stack pointer information.
Currently, we don't have good solution to allocat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82491
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83482
--- Comment #2 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
Maybe it provides a good test case though since it is triggered by -O2 but not
by -Os, like the original bug report?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83087
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
1.4% increase is not negligible if it is forced on all users without easy
option to disable it when they don't need/want it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80520
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #9)
> So AFAICT there's two issues that need to be addressed. PRE and split-paths.
>
> First up is PRE. Compile the sample code from c#5/c#6 with -O3
> -fno-split
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83471
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83087
--- Comment #13 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> 1.4% increase is not negligible if it is forced on all users without easy
> option to disable it when they don't need/want it.
To be fair, it can be easi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83482
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Right, I'll add your testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83483
Bug ID: 83483
Summary: gcc.dg/memcpy-6.c FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83471
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83483
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83439
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||skpgkp1 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83087
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #13)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> > 1.4% increase is not negligible if it is forced on all users without easy
> > option to disable it when they do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83329
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Dec 19 10:43:00 2017
New Revision: 255814
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255814&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Added testcase for PR 83329
2017-12-19 Martin Jambor
PR tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83087
--- Comment #15 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14)
> (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #13)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> > > 1.4% increase is not negligible if it is forced on all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83329
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368
James Clarke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83484
Bug ID: 83484
Summary: constexpr not evaluated at compile time
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78420
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83484
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 42917
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42917&action=edit
tmp.cpp: C++11 test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79209
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64le-unknown-linux-g |powerpc64le-unknown-linux-g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83484
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++-8
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/srv/local/gnu/install/gcc-8-host/bin/../libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/8.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: --prefix=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368
--- Comment #6 from James Clarke ---
And for what it's worth, 32-bit Solaris/SPARC's setjmp isn't saving any of the
caller's input or local registers either, so it's not glibc-specific.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83087
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017, trippels at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83087
>
> --- Comment #15 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83467
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83482
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Dec 19 11:12:35 2017
New Revision: 255817
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255817&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/83482
* g++.dg/torture/pr83482.C:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83468
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83475
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83483
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |testsuite
Summary|gcc.dg/mem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83480
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83479
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83485
Bug ID: 83485
Summary: cris: ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2311
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
> You already have code in sched-deps.c to deal with setjmp potentially not
> saving registers it should across all architectures:
>
> if (find_reg_note (insn, REG_SETJMP, NULL))
> {
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368
--- Comment #9 from James Clarke ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #7)
> > And for what it's worth, 32-bit Solaris/SPARC's setjmp isn't saving any of
> > the caller's input or local registers either, so it's not glibc-specific.
>
> Aga
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83479
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
And compiling with -Wall gives
t.c: In function ‘test’:
t.c:32:37: warning: index value is out of bound [-Warray-bounds]
vLastCol = _mm256_set1_pd(vLastRow[4]);
^
t.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368
--- Comment #10 from James Clarke ---
(In reply to James Clarke from comment #9)
> (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #7)
> > > And for what it's worth, 32-bit Solaris/SPARC's setjmp isn't saving any of
> > > the caller's input or local regi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82365
--- Comment #12 from Arnd Bergmann ---
The first partial workaround for strncpy() got merged into Linux and stable
backports:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=146734b091430
Submitted a second partial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83105
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
The baseline target CPU for arm linux is ARM10TDMI (armv5t), but that processor
only had VFPv1 and GCC has never supported that. Code generated historically
was incompatible with that target and if you ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82231
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83486
Bug ID: 83486
Summary: [GCOV] two-dimensional const arrays is marked as not
executed while the other is not
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83465
--- Comment #2 from Yibiao Yang ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Here I admit it's confusing, but it's related how GCC emits variable
> initiation for scalars and arrays with -O0:
>
> While for the scalar we do:
> struct S * cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
> > Again you're wrong, the call-saved registers are properly preserved if you
> > don't clobber the stack pointer, just write a small test or simply tweak
> > yours.
>
> Yes, I know that.
OK, at least som
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83486
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Can't be done without an ABI break. But it is just the PIC register, and I'm
> still of the view this is a GCC bug. You seem to not be listening to my
> arguments and just reciting that "setjmp must save c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368
--- Comment #13 from James Clarke ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #11)
> > > Again you're wrong, the call-saved registers are properly preserved if you
> > > don't clobber the stack pointer, just write a small test or simply tweak
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Using just a single ltrans, I see first divergence in mcf_r.ltrans0.088t.dom1.
Richi, how possible is the revision real culprit?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81933
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83485
--- Comment #1 from Arnd Bergmann ---
Reduced test case:
struct uart_port {
char quirks;
};
struct uart_8250_port {
struct uart_port port;
int em485;
} b[1];
int a, c;
void fn1(void) {
struct uart_8250_port *d = &b[c];
d->port.quirks |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368
--- Comment #14 from James Clarke ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #12)
> > Can't be done without an ABI break. But it is just the PIC register, and I'm
> > still of the view this is a GCC bug. You seem to not be listening to my
> > ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
Bug ID: 83487
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in expand_call, at calls.c:4098
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83479
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
Rule No.1: never log bugs before morning coffee ;)
This does not produce warnings, compiled with "-O3 -march=haswell -mavx512f
-mavx512vl -mavx512bw -mavx512dq -mavx512cd -Wall -Werror".
[code]
#include "
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83488
Bug ID: 83488
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE on a CET test-case
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83489
Bug ID: 83489
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in init_cumulative_args, at
config/i386/i386.c:7223
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83489
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83479
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
Here is also valid AVX version, it also spills a bit. Compiled with "-O3
-march=haswell -Wall -Werror".
[code]
#include "immintrin.h"
double test(const double data[5][4])
{
__m256d vLastRow, vLastCol,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83479
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
One correction: In c#4 line 17 has incorrect index, should be 8 instead of 9.
For some reason gcc did not complain here.
vLastRow = _mm512_load_pd (&data[8][0]);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83490
Bug ID: 83490
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in find_call_stack_args, at
dce.c:392
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
1 - 100 of 251 matches
Mail list logo
