https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107743
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Is that with release checking? The code around this is
/* Extraction of a full MODE1 value can be done with a subreg as long
as the least significant bit of the value is the least significant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107734
--- Comment #12 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> Fixed.
Thanks for the fix! I was not aware that sbitmap does not have a default
constructor :(.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107717
--- Comment #4 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #3)
> Fixed
Thanks for the fix! It also give me a good tip for match pattern writing :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107661
--- Comment #8 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #7)
> When debug reports unqualified `Aggregate replacements: 1[0]=callback_fn`
> does it mean ipa-cp does not distinguish between:
> * static void functio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107661
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #53888|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107745
Bug ID: 107745
Summary: long double constexprs don't work with * or /, but
work with + and - (JUST ON PPC)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107661
--- Comment #10 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
I think ipa-cp adds the call edge info in wrong direction. a.cc.081i.cp snippet
around do3() param1 (our callback):
IPA lattices after all propagation:
Lattices:
...
Node: void do3(volati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107745
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
How did you configure the compiler?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107713
--- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Fixed for trunk. Should we backport it to gcc-12 branch too?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107745
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian "spaetz" Spaeth ---
(sid_ppc64el-dchroot)~$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/powerpc64le-linux-gnu/12/lto-wrapper
OFFLOAD_TARGET_NAMES=nvptx-none
OFFLOAD_TARGET_DEFAULT=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19779
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Sebastian at SSpaeth dot de
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107713
--- Comment #7 from chenglulu ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #6)
> Fixed for trunk. Should we backport it to gcc-12 branch too?
I don't know what the problem is, I always fail when I backport.
If it is convenient for you, could you he
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107745
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107746
Bug ID: 107746
Summary: gcc -O1 misses a stack-buffer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107745
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think we have many dups on this. IBM double double isn't accurately emulated
inside of GCC (GCC emulation pretends it is a 106-bit mantissa type, which
isn't true, e.g. for denormals it has only 53-bit ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107747
Bug ID: 107747
Summary: gcc trunk at -Os misses a global-buffer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107745
--- Comment #5 from Sebastian "spaetz" Spaeth ---
I fully understand that nobody wants to invest time into fixing this. What
would be nice though, is if this were really just a missed optimization and not
rejecting to compile valid code.
powerp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107748
Bug ID: 107748
Summary: [13 Regression] Isn't _mm_cvtsbh_ss incorrect?
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107748
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107748
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Discovered as
+FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512bf16-cvtsbh2ss-1.c scan-assembler-times sall[
t]+[^{\\n]*16 1
regression with my
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/606398.html patch,
beca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107749
Bug ID: 107749
Summary: onlinedocs: gdc docs got removed during sphinx revert
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107749
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107748
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
float
_mm_cvtsbh_ss (__bf16 __A)
{
union{ float sf; __bf16 bf[2];} __tmp;
__tmp.sf = 0.0f;
__tmp.bf[1] = __A;
return __tmp.sf;
}
Looks like gcc can optimize it to
_mm_cvtsbh_ss(bool _Accum):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107748
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #2)
> float
> _mm_cvtsbh_ss (__bf16 __A)
> {
> union{ float sf; __bf16 bf[2];} __tmp;
> __tmp.sf = 0.0f;
> __tmp.bf[1] = __A;
> return __tmp.sf;
> }
>
> Looks l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107748
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 53923
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53923&action=edit
gcc13-pr107748-uglify.patch
Besides the missing uglification in this spot, I found some others (only
checked f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107628
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107750
Bug ID: 107750
Summary: Many gcc.dg/analyzer/fd-*.c tests FAIL
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: analyzer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107750
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 53925
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53925&action=edit
Patch for missing includes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107750
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107131
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107733
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks for filing this bug.
It's analyzing "a" twice: as called by main, and as a standalone function.
The warning comes from the analysis of "a" as a standalone function; if I
delete "main" from the repro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107733
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
...and also, as you note:
* deleting the unrelated code ` int *d = 0;` should not affect the result
(but does)
> the path note `(3) 'e' is NULL` is wrong, this may suggest some problems.
Note (3) seems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107750
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107751
Bug ID: 107751
Summary: [11/12 regression] False positive
-Wmaybe-uninitialized
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107692
--- Comment #7 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
(In reply to Hongyu Wang from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #4)
> cut...
>
> Yes, I've already posted the patch at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/606478.html
On
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107750
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
> Sorry about the breakage; thanks for filing this, and for the patch.
>
> Looking at:
> FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/fd-access-mode-target-headers.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107692
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #5)
> > -munroll-only-small-loops does not turn on or off -funroll-loops, and it
> > should not, so that it does what it says, if nothing else.
>
> Yes, and -funrol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107692
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107183
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems the bug is in swap_rtx_condition.
It is called on:
(insn 10023 10021 10024 4 (set (reg:CCFP 17 flags)
(unspec:CCFP [
(compare:CCFP (reg:XF 9 st(1) [orig:84 _3 ] [84])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106462
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I built mips64el-linux-gnuabi64 but using -mabi=64 -msingle-float for it gives
cc1: error: unsupported combination: -mgp64 -mno-odd-spreg
Did I miss something?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107183
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107752
Bug ID: 107752
Summary: Lack of offset information in AddressSanitizer reports
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106765
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bd0c9d9e706adaeea0d96152daade0a6819a8715
commit r13-4143-gbd0c9d9e706adaeea0d96152daade0a6819a8715
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107705
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ceba66ee230bb96b0889fc8ec7333c7ffae96d6e
commit r13-4144-gceba66ee230bb96b0889fc8ec7333c7ffae96d6e
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107307
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bd0c9d9e706adaeea0d96152daade0a6819a8715
commit r13-4143-gbd0c9d9e706adaeea0d96152daade0a6819a8715
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106764
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bd0c9d9e706adaeea0d96152daade0a6819a8715
commit r13-4143-gbd0c9d9e706adaeea0d96152daade0a6819a8715
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107705
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.3|13.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106764
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107307
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106765
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.3|13.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107752
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Do you mean the column information rather than offset?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107752
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Lack of offset information |Lack of column information
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107752
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107689
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107576
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:820c25c83561085f54268bd536f9d216d03c3e18
commit r13-4147-g820c25c83561085f54268bd536f9d216d03c3e18
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107680
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753
Bug ID: 107753
Summary: gfortran returns NaN in complex divisions
(x+x*I)/(x+x*I) and (x+x*I)/(x-x*I)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107692
--- Comment #9 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #5)
> > > -munroll-only-small-loops does not turn on or off -funroll-loops, and it
> > > should not, so that it does what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-18
Statu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107752
--- Comment #3 from Li Shaohua ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Do you mean the column information rather than offset?
Yes, I meant the column information.
I don’t know the implementation details of ASAN. But as UBsan can incl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107752
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107751
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.4
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107751
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced testcase (removes the templates, also now able to compile as C):
typedef const int T1;
typedef const int T2;
void std_equal(T1* a1, T1* a2, T2* b1);
void f() {
int a[3] = {1, 2, 3};
T1* x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107751
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107582
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101228
kerukuro changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kerukuro at gmail dot com
--- Comment #13 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107582
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
It's a bug in feasibility-checking when jumping through a function pointer:
dynamic_call_info_t::update_model blindly copies over the state from the
exploded_node's state, overwriting the precise knowledge o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107754
Bug ID: 107754
Summary: Confusing -Warray-bounds warning with strcpy
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I guess the reporter assumes that gcc uses a clever algorithm like Smith's
to handle such extreme cases of complex division. Not sure if that one is
available by some compilation flag, and I thin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107754
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-18
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107754
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note in the origin "reduced" testcase, we had a conditional null pointer which
was exposing the null pointer at -O2 due to optimizations.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107692
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Hongyu Wang from comment #9)
> The difference is, -mno-unroll-only-small-loops -O2 would cause
> rtl-loop-unroll takeing effect,
No. -m{no-,}unroll-only-small-loops does not enable or di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25290
--- Comment #26 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #25)
> The minmax is recorded as PR 101024. There is some more improvements to
> gimple_simplify_phiopt needed for early_p as the way min/max patterns are
> generate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #3)
> I guess the reporter assumes that gcc uses a clever algorithm like Smith's
> to handle such extreme cases of complex division. Not sure if that one is
> avai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103296
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100647
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99090
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 10:05:21PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753
>
> --- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to anlauf from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 11:24:29PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753
>
> --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753
--- Comment #7 from Weslley da Silva Pereira ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #3)
> I guess the reporter assumes that gcc uses a clever algorithm like Smith's
> to handle such extreme cases of complex division. Not sure if that one is
> ava
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753
--- Comment #8 from Weslley da Silva Pereira ---
Created attachment 53927
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53927&action=edit
Test case with many examples of complex division
Test code used in LAPACK 3.11.0.
Code extracted fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96503
PaX Team changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pageexec at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 11:24:29PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
>
> Does anyone know what is meant by "Fortran rules"? F66 does not
> have any particular algorithm specified. I'll l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107582
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a7aef0a5a2b7e20048275a29bd80674c1a061a24
commit r13-4158-ga7aef0a5a2b7e20048275a29bd80674c1a061a24
Author: David Malcolm
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107582
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
Fixed on trunk for GCC 13 by the above commit.
I hope to backport this to GCC 12; keeping this open to track that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107582
--- Comment #8 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #7)
> I hope to backport this to GCC 12; keeping this open to track that.
I believe the buggy implementation of dynamic_call_info_t::update_model was
introduced in r1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107582
--- Comment #9 from David Malcolm ---
s/earlier/earliest/
COLLECT_GCC=/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-snapshot/bin/g++
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk-20221118/configure
--prefix=/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-build/staging --build=x86_64-linux-gnu
--host=x86_64-linux-gnu --target=x86_64-linux-gnu --disable-bootstrap
--enable-multiarch --wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107755
Pokechu22 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.3.0, 12.2.0, 4.8.1,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107756
Bug ID: 107756
Summary: Change in sizeof(enum) with -std=gnu11 breaks Linux
kernel code compilation (PR c/36113 change regression)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107757
Bug ID: 107757
Summary: PPCLE: Inefficient vector constant creation
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ta
92 matches
Mail list logo
