https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84141
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68746
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84100
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 31 08:26:52 2018
New Revision: 257219
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257219&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/84100
* common.opt (falign-functions=, falign-jumps=,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84100
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8 Regression] Function |[7 Regression] Function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69869
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 31 08:31:52 2018
New Revision: 257220
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257220&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR preprocessor/69869
* traditional.c (skip_macro_block_co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69869
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] internal |[6/7 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81360
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84130
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79975
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i?86-pc-solaris2.*, |i?86-*-*, x86_64-*-*
|am
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83954
--- Comment #11 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Wed Jan 31 09:07:55 2018
New Revision: 257221
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257221&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix gnat.dg/lto20.adb XPASS
PR lto/83954
* gnat.dg/lto20.adb:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84117
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This started to ICE in particular with r256644. The other PR we have about
-ftrapv and vectorization is PR81661 (and probably others).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84145
Bug ID: 84145
Summary: Wrong CET options processing
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84132
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84135
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84136
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82256
--- Comment #7 from PaX Team ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #5)
> I am going to test the patch against mainline and commit it. However about
> backporting, can you produce some issue with this bug?
well, the thing is that i ran across
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84088
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84089
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82641
--- Comment #24 from Tamar Christina ---
Do you have a repro for this one? compiling the kernel with
`CFLAGS="march=-armv4t"` doesn't seem to reproduce the original issue.
But the scenario should be working without needing to separate out the
fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84132
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
So the difference is that before this rev.
difference = chrec_fold_minus (type, chrec_a, chrec_b);
for
(gdb) p debug_generic_expr (chrec_a)
(signed int) {{(unsigned int) h_10(D), +, 1}_1, +, 6}_2
(gdb)
ombine.c (record_dead_and_set_regs_1): Record the source unmodified
for a paradoxical SUBREG on a WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS target.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20180131-1.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/combine.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64946
--- Comment #23 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Wed Jan 31 10:06:45 2018
New Revision: 257225
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257225&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR tree-optimization/64946: XFAIL
gcc.target/aa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84138
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
ombine.c (record_dead_and_set_regs_1): Record the source unmodified
for a paradoxical SUBREG on a WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS target.
Added:
branches/gcc-7-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20180131-1.c
- copied unchanged from r257224,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/2018
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84141
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Summary|[8.0.1 regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84071
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84141
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8 Regression] Internal |[8.0.1 regression] Internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #8 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Aldy,
> Do we have a way of testing armeb, either through a simulator or through
> some aarch64 with magic flags?
GDB has an ARM simulator which is OK unless you need to test some of the newer
features li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84138
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84105
--- Comment #8 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Wed Jan 31 10:42:52 2018
New Revision: 257228
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257228&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/84105
* tree-pretty-print.c (dump_generic_node): H
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84105
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82641
--- Comment #25 from Arnd Bergmann ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #24)
> Do you have a repro for this one? compiling the kernel with
> `CFLAGS="march=-armv4t"` doesn't seem to reproduce the original issue.
It needs to be a kernel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84037
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka ---
We already have
/* This function adjusts the unroll factor based on
the hardware capabilities. For ex, bdver3 has
a loop buffer which makes unrolling of smaller
loops less important. This function dec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83618
--- Comment #2 from Julia Koval ---
Author: jkoval
Date: Wed Jan 31 11:06:20 2018
New Revision: 257229
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257229&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/83618
gcc/
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_builtin): H
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83618
--- Comment #3 from Julia Koval ---
Fixed by r257229
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84117
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84037
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #17)
> We already have
> /* This function adjusts the unroll factor based on
>the hardware capabilities. For ex, bdver3 has
>a loop buffer which makes unrolling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83024
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80641
--- Comment #10 from Paul Gotch ---
I'm afraid the changes made to libstdc++ have only solved part of the
regression if you say something like
std::vector v;
if(c.size() > 0)
c.resize(c.size() - 1);
then you no longer get a warning in 7.3 how
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84117
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84117
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84146
Bug ID: 84146
Summary: ICE with -mcet in dwarf2out_var_location, involving
sigsetjmp
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84139
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Christopher Di Bella from comment #0)
> Please let me know if the issue
> should be resubmitted for each version of GCC that it affects.
No, definitely not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84146
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84147
Bug ID: 84147
Summary: RTTI for base class in anonymous namespace could be
avoided
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84146
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84139
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81779
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.4
Summary|bool define from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84071
--- Comment #15 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #10)
> > The addition is performed on the full 32-bit register, so this obviously
> > means that the top 24 bits have an undefined value.
>
> Not if the entire registers have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84037
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener ---
On Zen I measure 23s with --param vect-max-version-for-alias-checks=0 (thus
basically before the rev.) and 33s without. With the patch and the size
parameter tuned to 146 I get 25s and with 90 it is 22.5s.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84120
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84037
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener ---
Note that targets already have the opportunity to limit vectorization by
adjusting their finish_cost hook - here they even have more useful information
available
(kind of).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84146
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase:
/* PR target/84146 */
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-O2 -g -mcet -fcf-protection=full" } */
int __setjmp (void **);
void *buf[64];
void
foo (void)
{
__setjmp (buf);
for (;;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84132
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84132
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 31 13:07:53 2018
New Revision: 257232
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257232&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-31 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/84132
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84146
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Untested fix:
--- gcc/config/i386/i386.c.jj 2018-01-31 09:26:18.341505667 +0100
+++ gcc/config/i386/i386.c 2018-01-31 14:13:33.815243832 +0100
@@ -2609,31 +2609,27 @@ rest_of_insert_endbranch (void)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #9 from Christophe Lyon ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #7)
> Hi Nick! Hi all!
>
> Do we have a way of testing armeb, either through a simulator or through
> some aarch64 with magic flags?
>
Please note that the bug a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84148
Bug ID: 84148
Summary: CET shouldn't be enabled in 32-bit run-time libraries
by default
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78534
--- Comment #26 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Wed Jan 31 13:23:20 2018
New Revision: 257233
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257233&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 78534 Reinstate better string copy algorithm
As part of the change to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84148
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84148
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #1)
> How old are the CPUs which treat it as UD? Older than i686/Pentium Pro?
> Thanks.
They are NOPs since Pentium Pro.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84089
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-01-31 4:57 AM, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I know nothing about the PA back-end, or whether E_VOIDmode is valid for
> base14_operand, however...
>
> Before r196122, a VOIDmode would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84149
Bug ID: 84149
Summary: [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 505.mcf/605.mcf ~10%
performance regression with r256888
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84071
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org |
--- Comment #16 from Eric Botcaz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84119
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84150
Bug ID: 84150
Summary: Wrong pointer size used in builtin setjmp/longjmp with
-maddress-mode=long
Product: gcc
Version: 6.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84122
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84143
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84071
--- Comment #18 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Jan 31 15:01:53 2018
New Revision: 257238
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257238&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/84071
* doc/tm.texi.in (WORD_REGI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84071
--- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Jan 31 15:01:40 2018
New Revision: 257237
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257237&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/84071
* doc/tm.texi.in (WORD_REGI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84141
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84141
--- Comment #7 from Jürgen Reuter ---
We reproduced this on Darwin 17.4.0 and OpenSuSe Leap 42.2 Linux and within a
Docker Image running Ubuntu LTS. The two cases on Linux are the test example of
which I extracted the smaller reproducer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82641
--- Comment #26 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Arnd Bergmann from comment #25)
> or to apply more force and add the ".arch" to each inline
> asm individually.
No, that would not be guaranteed to be supported: and you'd be lying to the
c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84116
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84138
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Jan 31 15:37:18 2018
New Revision: 257240
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257240&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/84138
* cp-gimplify.c (cp_fold): Check if X is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84141
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Pass with r257125.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84138
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84141
--- Comment #9 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Let me put a little smaller reproducer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84141
--- Comment #10 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 43307
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43307&action=edit
Reproducer_2, a little smaller
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84141
--- Comment #11 from Jürgen Reuter ---
When you run the binary created (seg_prod), you'll get
|
| Running self-test: mci_vamp
| -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84136
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Discussion/patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg02451.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67935
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84116
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Indeed, started with r242037.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84151
Bug ID: 84151
Summary: [4.9/5/6/7 Regression] g++ generates two identical
loads in a volatile-qualified member function.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84092
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Jan 31 16:07:06 2018
New Revision: 257242
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257242&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2018-01-31 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/84092
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84092
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84152
Bug ID: 84152
Summary: Internal compiler error when compiling a cxx file
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84152
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84152
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84143
--- Comment #2 from Neil Carlson ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
>
> gives 0. Should not it be 3?
Yeah. I noticed the same thing myself. It is 3 if the type parameters are
removed. I was intending to report it, but I th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84141
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|WAI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84150
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84150
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
This test will fail on all ILP32 targets where Pmode == DImode and
ptr_mode == SImode.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84071
--- Comment #19 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #16)
> > Also I wonder whether this means AArch64 should set it since targets like
> > MIPS
> > and Sparc already set it.
>
> There seems to be a good reason against that:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84127
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davydden at gmail dot com
--- Comment #33
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
Douglas Mencken changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||7.1.0, 7.2.0
--- Comment #6 from Dougl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
Douglas Mencken changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.4.0
--- Comment #7 from Douglas Menc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
--- Comment #8 from Douglas Mencken ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #2)
> > You cut away the most interesting part: the insn pattern that does not
> > exist.
> > Could you show us?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80867
--- Comment #12 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kelvin
Date: Wed Jan 31 18:22:19 2018
New Revision: 257248
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257248&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2018-01-31 Richard Biener
Kelvi
1 - 100 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
