https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114130
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66487
--- Comment #28 from Alexander Monakov ---
The bug is about the issue of lacking diagnostics, it should be fine to make
note of various approaches to remedy the problem in one bug report.
(in any case, all discussion of the Valgrind-based approa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114134
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sayle at gcc dot gnu.org
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102435
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|9.4.1 |9.3.0
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 102435, which changed state.
Bug 102435 Summary: gcc 9: aarch64 -ftree-loop-vectorize results in wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102435
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
--- Comment #40 from Lukas Grätz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #30)
> (In reply to Lukas Grätz from comment #29)
> > I belief this could and should be somehow be fixed by adding DWARF info that
> > certain callee-saved registers (=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114140
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
It's the old argument on whether isnan(NaN) should return true or false with
-ffinite-math-only. With what we currently do "constant folding" sNaN into NaN
would be correct with -fno-signalling-nans, like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114128
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-28
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
--- Comment #41 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Lukas Grätz from comment #40)
> It seems that the reason for is ultimately -Og, not this
> patch. See Bug 78685.
No. When PR78685 would be fixed by adding artificial hidden uses of variables
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114143
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114041
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Created attachment 57554 [details]
> gcc14-pr114041.patch
>
> stmt_simple_for_scop_p tests for INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (it used to test
> INTEGER_TYPE some years ago)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112938
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114128
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> incomplete bugreport
Sorry, my mistake. I created a new one, when an
old one is a better place.
See # 112938 for more details.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112325
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024, liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112325
>
> --- Comment #14 from Hongtao Liu ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112325
--- Comment #16 from Hongtao Liu ---
> I'm all for removing the 1/3 for innermost loop handling (in cunroll
> the unrolled loop is then innermost). I'm more concerned about
> unrolling more than one level which is exactly what's required for
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113988
--- Comment #28 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cc383e9702897dd783657ea3dce4aecf48318441
commit r14-9203-gcc383e9702897dd783657ea3dce4aecf48318441
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114041
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d6479050ecef10fd5e67b4da989229e4cfac53ee
commit r14-9204-gd6479050ecef10fd5e67b4da989229e4cfac53ee
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113988
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114041
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I can change the comparison into assert, or defer that for stage1?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59859
Bug 59859 depends on bug 114041, which changed state.
Bug 114041 Summary: wrong code with _BitInt() and -O -fgraphite-identity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114041
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114041
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98877
--- Comment #9 from Tamar Christina ---
While RA should be able to deal with this,
shouldn't we also just lower TBLs in gimple?
This no reason why this can't be a VEC_PERM_EXPR which would also get the
copies
removed at the gimple level and allo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114041
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114041
>
> --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> I can change the comparison into assert,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114145
Bug ID: 114145
Summary: Missed optimization of loop deletion
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114146
Bug ID: 114146
Summary: REPEATABLE argument of RANDOM_INIT and repeated
execution of the program
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114103
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.3
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
--- Comment #42 from Lukas Grätz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #41)
> (In reply to Lukas Grätz from comment #40)
> > It seems that the reason for is ultimately -Og, not this
> > patch. See Bug 78685.
>
> No. When PR78685 would be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114134
--- Comment #3 from Pilar Latiesa ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> I guess the testcase can be simplified to just show the return value
> handling issue.
I think this suffices:
struct TVec3D { double x, y, z; };
struct TKey
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94083
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114013
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114075
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Juergen Christ :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:82ebfd35da49e5df87da132a7b8c41baeebc57b4
commit r14-9205-g82ebfd35da49e5df87da132a7b8c41baeebc57b4
Author: Juergen Christ
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94083
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114145
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-28
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94083
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, ok. So then expansion should just concentrate on the fabs (x) <= nextafter
(inf, 0) case for soft-float case and defer the rest to PR66462 which would
handle that much earlier.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114147
Bug ID: 114147
Summary: tuple allocator-extended constructor requires
non-explicit default constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101203
Toni Neubert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114147
--- Comment #1 from __vic ---
Why _ImplicitDefaultCtor is required here?
template::value, _T1, _T2> = true>
_GLIBCXX20_CONSTEXPR
tuple(allocator_arg_t __tag, const _Alloc& __a)
: _Inherited(__tag, __a) { }
Missing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114075
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:db465230cccf0844e803dd6701756054fe97244a
commit r14-9206-gdb465230cccf0844e803dd6701756054fe97244a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91567
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Rainer Orth :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6864a2aa78a893afea26eb8fc1aa4b7ade3e940f
commit r14-9207-g6864a2aa78a893afea26eb8fc1aa4b7ade3e940f
Author: Rainer Orth
Date: Wed Fe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114075
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jchrist at linux dot
ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106851
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111462
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:92f07eb406612fa341dc33d9d6e4f3781dc09452
commit r14-9208-g92f07eb406612fa341dc33d9d6e4f3781dc09452
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111462
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114147
--- Comment #2 from __vic ---
Shouldn't this be added?
template::value, _T1, _T2> = true>
explicit
_GLIBCXX20_CONSTEXPR
tuple(allocator_arg_t __tag, const _Alloc& __a)
: _Inherited(__tag, __a) { }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114147
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-28
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113960
--- Comment #13 from mfarca ---
Would you please backport this to 12 when the patch lands?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113960
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|std::map with std::vector |[11/12/13/14 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113960
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114140
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114134
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14 Regression] Extra mov |[14 Regression] Extra mov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94083
--- Comment #6 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Contrary to what was claimed in bug 66462, I don't think there ever was a fixed
patch. Note that in bug 66462 comment 19, "June" is June 2017 but "November" is
November 2016 - the "November" one is the *old
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114143
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-28
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92687
Christopher Nerz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Christopher.Nerz at de dot
bosch.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102344
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114134
--- Comment #5 from Pilar Latiesa ---
Another testcase:
struct TKey { int i, j, k, w; };
TKey Key(int x)
{ return {x, 0, x, 0}; }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92687
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114140
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #16)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15)
> > It's the old argument on whether isnan(NaN) should return true or false with
> > -ffinite-math-only. With what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114148
Bug ID: 114148
Summary: gcc.target/i386/pr106010-7b.c FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114148
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 57557
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57557&action=edit
32- bit i386-pc-solaris2.11 assembler output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114148
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 57558
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57558&action=edit
32-bit i686-pc-linux-gnu assembler output
I'm attaching the assembler output for the reduced (all but ps_* and e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114149
Bug ID: 114149
Summary: lexicographical_compare should use memcmp for C++20
contiguous iterators as well as pointers
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114108
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Keyw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114129
--- Comment #2 from Theodore.Papadopoulo at inria dot fr ---
OK thank you... I did not realize that. C/C++ sometimes has a weird syntax.
Sorry for the noise
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114129
Theodore.Papadopoulo at inria dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114150
Bug ID: 114150
Summary: gcc.target/i386/avx512cd-vpbroadcastmb2q-2.c etc. FAIL
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
--- Comment #43 from Lukas Grätz ---
(In reply to Lukas Grätz from comment #42)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #41)
> >
> > No. When PR78685 would be fixed by adding artificial hidden uses of
> > variables at the end of their scopes,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92687
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
finish_decltype_type does:
/* decltype of a decomposition name drops references in the tuple case
(unlike decltype of a normal variable) and keeps cv-qualifiers from
the containing obj
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114147
--- Comment #4 from __vic ---
The latest gcc-14-20240225 snapshot doesn't include this fix. Is there any
chance to have this fixed in 14.1 release?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114151
Bug ID: 114151
Summary: [14 Regression] weird and inefficient codegen and
addressing modes since
g:a0b1798042d033fd2cc2c806afbb77875dd2909b
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c841144a94363ff26e40ab3f26b14702c32987a8
commit r14-9215-gc841144a94363ff26e40ab3f26b14702c32987a8
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113831
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5c01ede02a1f9ba1a58ab8d96a73e46e0484d820
commit r14-9216-g5c01ede02a1f9ba1a58ab8d96a73e46e0484d820
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108355
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5c01ede02a1f9ba1a58ab8d96a73e46e0484d820
commit r14-9216-g5c01ede02a1f9ba1a58ab8d96a73e46e0484d820
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108355
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||xfail
Summary|[13 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114152
Bug ID: 114152
Summary: Wrong exception specifiers for LFTSv3 scope guard
destructors
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114153
Bug ID: 114153
Summary: std::less prefers operator const void*() over
operator<=>() in C++20 mode
Product: gcc
Version: 12.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114153
--- Comment #1 from Marc Mutz ---
It's only the C++14 "diamond"/is_transparent version of std::less/greater_equal
that is affected. If you replace the return from main with greater_equal{},
then it calls op<=>, too:
// https://godbolt.org/z/cnj
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114147
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|14.0|
Summary|[11/12/13 Regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92687
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114151
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114151
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Yep, it seems to only pick up global ranges that way.
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.cc b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.cc
index 7cae5bdefea..626fc5bf5d7 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.cc
+++ b/gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114152
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114152
--- Comment #2 from Victor ---
Will do!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114152
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96147
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96147
--- Comment #11 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 57562
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57562&action=edit
32-bit sparc-sun-solaris2.11 bb-slp-32.c.191t.slp2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114152
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I can take care of it this time, since I think I can figure out how to fix it
just from your detailed report :-) and I've already written a testcase:
// { dg-do compile { target c++20 } }
// PR libstdc+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114152
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:80c386cb20d38ebc55f30a79418fabfbed904b87
commit r14-9219-g80c386cb20d38ebc55f30a79418fabfbed904b87
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113431
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 62283, which changed state.
Bug 62283 Summary: basic-block vectorization fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
--- Comment #32 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 57563
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57563&action=edit
32-bit sparc-sun-solaris2.11 vect-33.c.265t.optimized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114154
Bug ID: 114154
Summary: gcc.dg/vect/vect-alias-check-1.c XPASSes
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114154
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 57564
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57564&action=edit
32-bit sparc-sun-solaris2.11 vect-alias-check-1.c.179t.vect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102954
--- Comment #6 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 57565
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57565&action=edit
64-bit sparc-sun-solaris2.11 pr33804.c.179t.vect
The issue persists as of 20240228.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102954
--- Comment #7 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 57566
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57566&action=edit
64-bit sparc-sun-solaris2.11 slp-multitypes-3.c.179t.vect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113685
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
Host|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113685
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 57567
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57567&action=edit
64-bit sparc-sun-solaris2.11 vect-117.c.265t.optimized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112868
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #6)
Thanks Peter. We're happy to help with that in Gentoo. If you remember, please
CC me on the patch and we'll give it a spin.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114141
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
--- Comment #3 from kargl
1 - 100 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
