https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86683
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45411
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45411&action=edit
gcc9-pr88775-2.patch
The following incremental patch (untested except for this testcase and
comparisons_pointe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88798
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83773
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88768
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87305
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88688
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86683
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88555
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88296
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88044
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88296
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 11 10:17:12 2019
New Revision: 267831
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267831&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/88296
* gcc.target/i386/pr88296.c: New
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88799
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88785
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88800
Bug ID: 88800
Summary: Spurious -Werror=array-bounds for non-taken branch
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53294
--- Comment #3 from Antony Polukhin ---
Any progress?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88750
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #35
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88752
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88800
--- Comment #1 from Tomasz Grabiec ---
The gcc flags given in the description were incomplete, should be:
gcc flags: -Wall -Werror -std=c++17 -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |prathamesh3492
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88801
Bug ID: 88801
Summary: [9 Regression] Performance regression on 473.astar on
aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88125
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Done.
Do we also want this patch?
--- a/libstdc++-v3/config/abi/pre/gnu.ver
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/config/abi/pre/gnu.ver
@@ -1123,6 +1123,7 @@ GLIBCXX_3.4.4 {
GLIBCXX_3.4.5 {
+#ifndef HAVE_SYMVER_SYMBOL_R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88125
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Jan 11 11:39:45 2019
New Revision: 267834
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267834&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/88125 remove duplicate entry in linker script
PR li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't see how that can help.
First of all, the duplicate SSA_NAMEs don't have to appear just in the same
PHI, you can have them in multiple different PHIs too.
And, you can have loops there as well, either
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88801
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And no, you casn't rely on phis having just a few arguments, there are phis
with tens of thousands of arguments in real-world code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88787
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86683
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
And please try GCC 8.2, maybe it has been fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84995
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Дилян Палаузов from comment #7)
> Why doesn’t GCC “make install” put the linker plugin under
> $libdir/bfd-plugins and how are program ./configure’s supposed to be written
> in a way, that LTO wor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88616
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88787
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84995
--- Comment #9 from Дилян Палаузов ---
Yes, $(libdir)/bfd-plugins is a location automatically scanned by ar/nm/ranlib.
The question is, why GCC’s “make install” does not put there its linker plugin.
As long as nobody installs the linker plugins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 11 12:05:54 2019
New Revision: 267839
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267839&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/88714
* passes.c (finish_optimization_passes)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #3 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com ---
Unfortunately my application is huge and spawns many threads.
Can you propose some debugging aid. I am building gcc myself, so I can add
anything to libasan that you want.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to dominik.strasser from comment #3)
> Unfortunately my application is huge and spawns many threads.
>
> Can you propose some debugging aid. I am building gcc myself, so I can add
> anything to liba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86683
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WORKSFORME |FIXED
--- Comment #6 from Segher Bo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
--- Comment #10 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Oops, I didn't realize there could be loop within phi (phi result being an arg
too). I will try to come up with a better approach for handling nested PHI's.
In the meantime, for stage 4, s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88786
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> I think it's a bit too low-level and having the higher-level op benefits
> later optimizations (match.pd patterns, etc.)
match.pd will already ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88796
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On January 10, 2019 8:49:58 PM GMT+01:00, "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88796
>
>--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
>We also use magic alias s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88758
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Jan 11 13:20:01 2019
New Revision: 267840
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267840&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add a testcase (PR middle-end/88758).
2019-01-11 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88802
Bug ID: 88802
Summary: std::hash not implemented
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88802
--- Comment #1 from Tomalak Geret'kal ---
[unord.hash]/2
> Each specialization of hash is either enabled or disabled, as described
> below. [ Note: Enabled specializations meet the Cpp17Hash requirements, and
> disabled specializations do not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88802
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88800
Paweł Dziepak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pdziepak at quarnos dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88778
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88803
Bug ID: 88803
Summary: gfortran documentation warning: '.' or ',' must follow
@xref
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88802
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Jan 11 14:54:49 2019
New Revision: 267845
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267845&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/88802 define std::hash for C++17
PR libstdc++/88802
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88804
Bug ID: 88804
Summary: Inconsistently diagnosed unused but set static
variable in lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88044
--- Comment #10 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I tried both (1) and (2) and the test case does not hang.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88805
Bug ID: 88805
Summary: hidden symbol `__cpu_model' is referenced by DSO
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88806
Bug ID: 88806
Summary: extern "C" variables declared in different namespaces
are considered different
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88807
Bug ID: 88807
Summary: misleading indentation warnings building libgfortran
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88797
--- Comment #5 from Cassio Neri ---
There's a (fragile) workaround:
void use(unsigned);
#define VERSION 0
bool f(unsigned x, unsigned y) {
#if VERSION == 0
return x < + (y <= );
#else
bool b = y <= ;
return x < + b;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88802
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80517
Matthias Kretz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|8.0 |9.0
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Kretz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80517
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Kretz ---
A similar test case showing that something is still missing
(https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/t1DT7E):
#include
inline __m128i cmp(__m128i x, __m128i y) {
return _mm_cmpeq_epi16(x, y);
}
inline unsigned to_b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80517
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Matthias Kretz from comment #3)
> GCC 9 almost resolves this. However, for some reason this extended test case
> is not fully optimized: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/jRrHth
> i.e. the call to dont_cal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88808
Bug ID: 88808
Summary: bitwise operators on AVX512 masks fail to use the new
mask instructions
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80517
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Matthias Kretz from comment #4)
> A similar test case showing that something is still missing
You don't seem to be passing constants here, so this is unrelated to this PR.
If you file a new one, p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
I understand what jump threading does but I don't know enough about how it
works to have a clear idea how viable marking up the created statements would
be. To avoid false negatives it would need to make it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88807
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88805
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This appears to be either a problem with your binutils
or pilot error. It is not a problem with libgfortran.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88800
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88806
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Related to the old bug 27227.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88808
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88805
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>/usr/bin/ld: a.out: hidden symbol `__cpu_model' in
>/tmp/gcc9/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/9.0.0/libgcc.a(cpuinfo.o) is
>referenced by DSO
Could you figure out which shared library references __cpu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88809
Bug ID: 88809
Summary: do not use rep-scasb for inline strlen/memchr
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88793
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #3)
> I think it's fair to raise the question if gcc should not use scasb/cmpsb by
> default (I thought there was a bug for that but apparently there isn't?).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88809
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #0)
> Therefore I suggest we don't use rep-scasb for inline strlen anymore by
> default (we currently do at -Os). This is in part motivated by PR 88793 and
> the Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88809
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>(although to be fair, a call to strlen prevents use of redzone and clobbers
>more registers)
And causes more register pressure ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88793
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88778
--- Comment #4 from 刘袋鼠 ---
Currently _Complex is classified as SSE_REG_CLASS, and need two 2 hardreg to
handle it. We may need to handle things like TARGET_HARD_REGNO_MODE_OK in
backend. So that ira can work suitable for our complex operation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88803
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88044
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I tried both (1) and (2) and the test case does not hang.
Could you please try '0, 1', '1, 2', and '0, 2'?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88793
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #5)
> (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #3)
> > (-Os is not "minimize size at all costs").
>
> Bug 88809 comment 1 says the exact opposite. 8-/
And the man
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88696
--- Comment #1 from Lauri Kasanen ---
Actually, seems this is only a documentation bug. vec_mul for the int vectors
is not listed on any of the "PowerPC AltiVec/VSX Built-in Functions" pages,
even though it works. It emulates the multiplication o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88114
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
Updated patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-01/msg00646.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64862
--- Comment #8 from Tom Tromey ---
Sorry about the extreme delay on this.
I think my patch has long since bit-rotted, but I can attach it for
reference. I believe my assignment situation got sorted out so this
should be fine to read and/or copy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64862
--- Comment #9 from Tom Tromey ---
Created attachment 45413
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45413&action=edit
ancient patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88798
--- Comment #3 from Wojciech Mula ---
Sorry, I didn't find that bug; I think you may close this one.
BTW, I had checked the code on godbolt.org before submitting. I tested also
with their "GCC (trunk)", but the generated code is the same as for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64862
--- Comment #10 from Tom Tromey ---
Also I think all the test suite changes never really worked.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88614
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Jan 11 18:44:00 2019
New Revision: 267851
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267851&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 88777
PR 88614
* genattrtab.c (min_fn): Don't tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88777
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Jan 11 18:44:00 2019
New Revision: 267851
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267851&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 88777
PR 88614
* genattrtab.c (min_fn): Don't tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88044
--- Comment #12 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
None of those hang, either.
I also experimented with the options a bit. The as-is options affecting
optimization are: -O3 -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -finline-functions
Change to -O1 and no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88693
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 11 19:04:32 2019
New Revision: 267852
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267852&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/88693
* tree-ssa-strlen.c (get_min_st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88693
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Look e.g. at -O2:
void bar (int);
void
foo (int x)
{
int i = 0;
if (x == 8)
{
x = 16;
goto lab;
}
for (; i < 100; i++)
{
lab:
bar (x);
}
}
but pretty much any ti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87305
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Jan 11 19:25:31 2019
New Revision: 267854
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267854&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-11 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/87305
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88114
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Jan 11 19:40:13 2019
New Revision: 267855
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267855&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR C++/88114 Gen destructor of an abstract class
PR C++/8811
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8811
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Jan 11 19:40:13 2019
New Revision: 267855
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267855&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR C++/88114 Gen destructor of an abstract class
PR C++/8811
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88114
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88718
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87214
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88805
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jb at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86655
--- Comment #4 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 45414
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45414&action=edit
This is a patch on both std and tr1, both sph_legendre and assoc_legendre.
2018-01-11 Edward Smith-Ro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88810
Bug ID: 88810
Summary: gcc/fortran/dependency.c:2200: possible cut'n'paste
error ?
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88733
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 11 21:03:53 2019
New Revision: 267858
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267858&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/85956
PR lto/88733
* tree-inline.h (
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
