https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96012
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
Bug ID: 96015
Summary: [regression] gcc-10.1.0 miscompiles Python on hppa
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Created attachment 48814
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48814&action=edit
bug_test.c
Selfcontained example.
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 11.0.0 20200701 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
--- Comment #3 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Reproducible on both qemu-hppa and on real "PA8600 (PCX-W+) 9000/785/C3600"
machine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95940
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Eric Botcazou changed:
W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96016
Bug ID: 96016
Summary: AArch64: enable libquadmath
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libquadmath
> It's fine to file these ice-on-invalid bugs, but don't be surprised if
> nobody has time to work on bugs that are only triggered by unrealistic
> garbage input.
Right, an ICE is a perfectly valid outcome for garbage input and there are
hundreds of assertions in the compiler precisely for this p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96016
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
If long double is 128bit fp already, then glibc has full support of it. So you
dont need libquadmath at all. It is only there if long double is not 128bit
long double and glibc does not have support for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96016
--- Comment #2 from Bu Le ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> If long double is 128bit fp already, then glibc has full support of it. So
> you dont need libquadmath at all. It is only there if long double is not
> 128bit long doub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
--- Comment #5 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
I ran the test in qemu-hppa (qemu user binary emulation) against Gentoo's
hppa2.0 root system as:
/usr/bin/qemu-hppa -L /usr/hppa2.0-unknown-linux-gnu/ "$@"
where /usr/hppa2.0-unknown-linux-gnu/ is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95829
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:624e60f080989fa57756575a0bb47a97748b52b8
commit r11-1753-g624e60f080989fa57756575a0bb47a97748b52b8
Author: Mark Eggleston
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
--- Comment #6 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Created attachment 48816
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48816&action=edit
bad-bug.S
bad-bug.S is miscompiled file generated by main gcc (not clear what is wrong
yet).
Generated as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96016
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
You are computing the sine of (double)ld. If you want the sine of a long
double value, you need to use the sinl function, also use acosl(-1) to compute
pi in long double precision.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96016
--- Comment #4 from Bu Le ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #3)
> You are computing the sine of (double)ld. If you want the sine of a long
> double value, you need to use the sinl function, also use acosl(-1) to
> compute pi in long d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96010
--- Comment #2 from Sergio Losilla ---
On a side note: are these bug reports I am sending useful in their current
form? Anything else that I can do to help? (Other than actually fixing them,
because I feel awfully unqualified to even start lookin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96014
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I already sent a patch for g++.dg/analyzer/pr94028.C
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-June/549202.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96017
Bug ID: 96017
Summary: Powerpc suboptimal register spill in likely path
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96017
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96017
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.4 |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96017
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
Nick reports same behavior at -O3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96009
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Note that we don't do the optimization if you replace double with long either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95989
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96017
--- Comment #3 from Nicholas Piggin ---
This is possibly a more targeted and simpler test case for at least one of the
problems in bug 84443. I would like to re-test that case after this one is
solved if it's not an obvious duplicate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95829
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e025298cfcb1aae9d3ff674cdc1c4fb271cb2bdd
commit r10-8405-ge025298cfcb1aae9d3ff674cdc1c4fb271cb2bdd
Author: Mark Eggleston
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96010
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
You're doing well, but as said, we have quite some GCOV issues that are quite
similar to this one. And it seems quite low priority to me for now.
You can inspire about what bugs we have here:
https://gcc.gnu.
Eric Botcazou writes:
>> It's fine to file these ice-on-invalid bugs, but don't be surprised if
>> nobody has time to work on bugs that are only triggered by unrealistic
>> garbage input.
>
> Right, an ICE is a perfectly valid outcome for garbage input and there are
> hundreds of assertions in th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95839
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7b3adfa7bb47e4ebde91634caa5a7e13175558f1
commit r11-1757-g7b3adfa7bb47e4ebde91634caa5a7e13175558f1
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95839
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 95839, which changed state.
Bug 95839 Summary: Failure to optimize addition of vector elements to vector
addition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95839
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96018
Bug ID: 96018
Summary: Optimization issue with external HDF5 library
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96018
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96018
--- Comment #2 from martin.schlipf at damnthespam dot com ---
Well hdf5 is not developed by me, its a huge library. You can install it
manually if you want (https://www.hdfgroup.org/solutions/hdf5/), but it is
available on Ubuntu as mentioned
sud
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95829
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a833478ca9898fe287ad423e5af8462938886758
commit r9-8710-ga833478ca9898fe287ad423e5af8462938886758
Author: Mark Eggleston
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96018
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
You are not using HDF5's "native" Fortran interface directly, but a
clumsy way with c_f_pointer to obscure your code. Any reason for that?
Have you considered using RESHAPE for what you seem to t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94743
--- Comment #24 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aa8b5ca0b540fde5890f3114f2d7076d5238fc2e
commit r11-1759-gaa8b5ca0b540fde5890f3114f2d7076d5238fc2e
Author: Christophe Lyon
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96019
Bug ID: 96019
Summary: Optimization forgets non-default scalar_storage_order
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96019
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96018
--- Comment #4 from martin.schlipf at damnthespam dot com ---
Hdf5 doesn't have native support for complex datatypes, so we convert to real
and write that it is a complex as an attribute. If you replace the conversion
logic by an array instead of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95829
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:88b44ed719378a52e001a474bcf963ea4c4841b1
commit r8-10337-g88b44ed719378a52e001a474bcf963ea4c4841b1
Author: Mark Eggleston
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95829
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
There's ASM diff in between GCC 9 and 10 version:
diff -u good.s bad.s
--- good.s 2020-07-01 15:04:58.315839436 +0200
+++ bad.s 2020-07-01 15:04:30.684040487 +0200
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@
.L15:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
And first change happens in pr96015.c.299r.bbro which is likely a reason why a
jump table is partially copied.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95992
--- Comment #2 from Takatoshi Kondo ---
Thank you.
I understood that I should use appropriate types.
I also understood why libc++ and libstdc++ behavior are different.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95989
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96019
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95989
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I have a fix for std::this_thread::get_id() but we also need the same fix in
and I'd rather refactor that first to only need to fix it in one
place.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96019
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
So AFAIU
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
uint8_t raw[] = { 0xaa, 0xbb, 0xcc, 0xdd, 0x11, 0x22 };
SS instance;
memcpy (&instance, raw, sizeof (SS));
printf("%x, %x\n", instance.a, instance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96017
--- Comment #4 from Peter Bergner ---
To be pedantic, "val" is assigned r3, the incoming arg reg. The compiler
temporary that holds "*val" is assigned r9 which is a volatile register. The
only non-volatile in use is r31 which was assigned to ho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96019
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
> So AFAIU
>
> int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
> uint8_t raw[] = { 0xaa, 0xbb, 0xcc, 0xdd, 0x11, 0x22 };
> SS instance;
> memcpy (&instance, raw, sizeof (SS));
> printf("%x, %x\n", instanc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96020
Bug ID: 96020
Summary: FRE uses not available def across EH edges
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96020
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 48819
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48819&action=edit
the verifier
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86568
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8461191b826654a30eaaa57257bcca8e548f11c2
commit r11-1760-g8461191b826654a30eaaa57257bcca8e548f11c2
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95446
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:685d8dafb4a1cb29ee219ad7857614ff66a78022
commit r11-1761-g685d8dafb4a1cb29ee219ad7857614ff66a78022
Author: Mark Eggleston
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96007
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95189
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jerryfromearth at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96014
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95999
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
--- Comment #9 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> There's ASM diff in between GCC 9 and 10 version:
>
> diff -u good.s bad.s
> --- good.s2020-07-01 15:04:58.315839436 +0200
> +++ bad.s 202
0-07-01 15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
--- Comment #10 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Created attachment 48820
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48820&action=edit
good-bug.S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96016
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93711
--- Comment #7 from Boris Staletic ---
I don't know if this is the same problem, since the actual
`std::istream_iterator` isn't empty, unlike in the other test cases. If
the following is a different problem, sorry up front for the noise.
https:/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
--- Comment #11 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Looking at -fdump-tree-all:
$gcc/xgcc -B$gcc -lm -Wsign-compare -Wall -fno-PIE -no-pie
-fno-stack-protector -O2 -S bug_test.c -o bad-bug.S -fdump-tree-all
I see that stores are eliminated at 'bad-b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52279
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0a7183f6d173cbd69025a3deb30d16f91e6392b2
commit r11-1764-g0a7183f6d173cbd69025a3deb30d16f91e6392b2
Author: Mark Eggleston
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96021
Bug ID: 96021
Summary: missing -Wnonnull passing nullptr to a nonnull
variadic lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96021
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|11.0|8.4.1
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
The block in question goes away because it serves no purpose:
[local count: 242478389]:
_13 = *self_11(D);
_16 = *other_12(D);
sign_17 = _13 - _16;
if (sign_17 == 0)
goto ; [34.00%]
else
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95984
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96022
Bug ID: 96022
Summary: ICE during GIMPLE pass: slp in operator[], at
vec.h:867
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77595
--- Comment #4 from Olivier Kannengieser ---
The bug is still there in GCC 10.1, and was the cause of a question of
stackoverflow:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/62659801/constrained-member-functions-and-explicit-template-instantiation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91807
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|redi at gcc dot gnu.org|ville.voutilainen at
gmail do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Hmm, there's a control dependency though in bb13:
[local count: 242478389]:
# result_21 = PHI <1(5), sign_17(6)>
switch (op_14(D)) [33.33%], case 0: [16.67%], case 1:
[50.00%], case 3: [50.00%],
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96023
Bug ID: 96023
Summary: Line number for error message differs for x86-64 vs
all other architectures
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96023
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
--- Comment #14 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Created attachment 48821
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48821&action=edit
bad-bug.c.191t.cddce3
bad-bug.c.191t.cddce3 is the full file generated by -fdump-tree-all-all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95109
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Reduced testcase:
! { dg-do compile }
module target1
contains
subroutine foo (n, o, p, q, r, pp)
integer :: n, o, p, q, r, s, i, j
integer :: a (2:o)
integer, pointer :: pp
!$omp targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96021
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
--- Comment #15 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Created attachment 48822
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48822&action=edit
bad-bug.c.190t.dse3
bad-bug.c.190t.dse3 previous tree phase for comparison.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96014
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:039a630d787dc18c76b81f08a322ba1e0d91082d
commit r11-1769-g039a630d787dc18c76b81f08a322ba1e0d91082d
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95613
--- Comment #3 from G. Steinmetz ---
And for the sake of completeness, with another incarnation of goto :
$ cat zz2.f90 # etc.
program p
select case (0)
2 end select
stop
call s(*2)
end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96024
Bug ID: 96024
Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in mio_name_expr_t, at
fortran/module.c:2159
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96018
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to martin.schlipf from comment #4)
> Finally, I reproduced it with gfortran 9.3.0 + hdf 1.12.0 and gfortran 10.0
> + hdf 1.10.4. With older versions of gfortran 7.3.0 it does not appear.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96025
Bug ID: 96025
Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in expr_check_typed_help, at
fortran/expr.c:5437
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96025
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #1 from G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95880
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f60918f960594ab6aa6d3082d342385210e8ac90
commit r9-8711-gf60918f960594ab6aa6d3082d342385210e8ac90
Author: Harald Anlauf
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71706
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0c6cec5ce99a7f532d66373e0ba340c94ef688a6
commit r9-8712-g0c6cec5ce99a7f532d66373e0ba340c94ef688a6
Author: Harald Anlauf
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95880
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96024
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-01
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52622
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96025
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52622
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #15 from Dominiqu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95921
--- Comment #4 from Rich Felker ---
The related issue I meant to link to is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93681 which is for x87, but the
equivalent happens on m68k due to FLT_EVAL_METHOD being 2 here as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94627
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a1a0dc4548979f8a340a7ea71624a52a20e1e0b3
commit r11-1770-ga1a0dc4548979f8a340a7ea71624a52a20e1e0b3
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96014
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94882
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:553c6572061f6f9ef92514e8f13de95d509ad614
commit r11-1771-g553c6572061f6f9ef92514e8f13de95d509ad614
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Wed Jul 1 14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94882
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96025
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96025
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
