https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116236
--- Comment #10 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
What do we do when strict=0 and legitimate_address_p passes a hard register
that is not valid? Reject it? Or is that fine and ra will fix it?
(There are cases where passes like insn combine are propag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85624
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85624
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|15.0|14.3
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116390
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||14.1.0
Summary|Another IC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116390
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116389
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116390
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Detlef Vollmann from comment #5)
> Thanks for your patch.
> It solves the segfault ICE for -O2.
> But unfortunately it doesn't solve the build for -O3 or -O4.
> It still produces the same er
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116325
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 58945
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58945&action=edit
C++ test case from libstdc++v3
This is a test case from libstdc++v3. Compile with
$ avr-g++ pr116389.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116402
Bug ID: 116402
Summary: [LRA] Improve hook documentation for reload -> LRA
transition
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116402
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116389
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #2)
> or a backend bug with avr.
I don't see what the avr backend is doing wrong. I played around with
avr_hard_regno_mode_ok etc. and denied SImode for R30, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116390
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116389
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #4)
> "IRA doesn't understand the impact of paradoxical subreg" is a
> reasonable assessment.
RA should either assess the validity of a paradoxical subreg in the m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116407
Bug ID: 116407
Summary: [avr] error: relocation truncated to fit
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116407
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||avr
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116407
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116390
--- Comment #11 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
This PR is about a segmentation fault, which has been fixed already by the
commit above.
The "insn does not satisfy its constraints" ICE you are seeing now is PR116389.
Please f'up to PR116389.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116390
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|WAITING
--- Comment #12 from Georg-J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115830
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 58953
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58953&action=edit
proposed patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-August/659422.html
AVR: target/115830 - Make
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116390
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116389
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 58955
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58955&action=edit
Reduced C test case
$ avr-gcc pr116389-red.c -S -Os -mmcu=avrtiny
struct T { int val; };
void f_int (int)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116321
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> See the m68k bug - LRA/IRA _never_ use strict = 1
You mean PR116236? Its fix says:
> This matters on targets like m68k that support index extension
> and th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116325
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 58958
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58958&action=edit
qsort.c. C test case
LRA can't compile qsort.c from libc; same ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116325
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #2)
> Created attachment 58958 [details]
> qsort.c. C test case
>
> LRA can't compile qsort.c from libc; same ICE.
Just compile qsort.c with -mlra (optimizatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116236
--- Comment #26 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #25)
> I think there was a corresponding bug on the AVR side, not sure if that's
> now also resolved.
As far as I understand, the AVR issue is of a different kind
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116433
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> The real fix is to have named address spaces support extended to C++. See
> PR43745.
That's a different issue. EEPROM handling is too complicated, we don't w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49857
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115830
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115830
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116321
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #6)
> The PR is about an existing testcase that fails with LRA on m86k.
>
> gcc/
> PR middle-end/116321
> * lra-constraints.cc (g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116326
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #2)
> This is caused by the final entry in ELIMINABLE_REGS:
>
> { FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM + 1, STACK_POINTER_REGNUM + 1 }
>
> I guess this was added to work ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116542
Bug ID: 116542
Summary: [avr] Missed post increment optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116326
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #4)
> (In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #3)
> > It was due to problems with multi-reg frame-pointer. (AFAIR, using a
> > hard-frame-poiner besides fram
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116326
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #6)
> I don't think we should make any permanent changes to support this kind of
> manipulation, since it's only needed during the transition.
What about the fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116326
--- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #8)
> (In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #7)
> > What about the following line in reload1.h:
> >
> > // Used during roload -> LRA transition because EL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115523
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
As it appears, the test case gives resonable code now; but only for trunk.
On v14, the code is still bloat.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116326
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116548
Bug ID: 116548
Summary: [avr] ivopts Introducing expensive loop condition
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116550
Bug ID: 116550
Summary: [lra][avr] internal compiler error: in
final_scan_insn_1, at final.cc:2807
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113932
Bug 113932 depends on bug 116321, which changed state.
Bug 116321 Summary: [lra][avr] internal compiler error: in avr_out_lpm_no_lpmx,
at config/avr/avr.cc:4572
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116321
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113934
Bug 113934 depends on bug 116321, which changed state.
Bug 116321 Summary: [lra][avr] internal compiler error: in avr_out_lpm_no_lpmx,
at config/avr/avr.cc:4572
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116321
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116321
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56183
Bug 56183 depends on bug 116321, which changed state.
Bug 116321 Summary: [lra][avr] internal compiler error: in avr_out_lpm_no_lpmx,
at config/avr/avr.cc:4572
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116321
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116550
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #0)
> This ICE is relatively new; I don't see it with "gcc version 15.0.0
> 20240818".
So that's just a matter of options. The PR also occurs with 20240818 for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116326
--- Comment #11 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 59099
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59099&action=edit
Proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-September/662641.html
reload1.cc: rtl-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90706
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.0, 11.0, 12.0, 9.0
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56183
Bug 56183 depends on bug 90706, which changed state.
Bug 90706 Summary: [10/11/12/13 Regression] Useless code generated for stack /
register operations on AVR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90706
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109280
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Could you check against avr-gcc v12.3 just to make sure you didn't hit PR90706
(which affects all versiond from v9 to v12.2).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105753
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-04-20
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105753
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #15 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105753
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||13.1.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105753
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #53561|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54816
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Roger Sayle from comment #5)
> This is now fixed on mainline [but was present in GCC 12.2], and a new test
> case added to ensure this stays fixed.
Hi Roger,
I am having a problem with your
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105753
--- Comment #18 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to User99627 from comment #14)
> (In reply to fiesh from comment #13)
> > * While you failed to provide anything meaningful to the bug report (your
> > code snippet is not self-contained valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105523
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105523
--- Comment #29 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to David Brown from comment #20)
> This is not an AVR backend issue - it is much wider than that. It is
> perhaps reasonable to test a patch just on the AVR, but this needs to be
> fixed in th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109650
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109650
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109650
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |other
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Joha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109650
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 54956
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54956&action=edit
pr109650-2.c: A simpler C test case without assembly.
Again, this testcase triggers with avr-gcc -Os:
type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109650
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||saaadhu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109650
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |target
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Joh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109731
Bug ID: 109731
Summary: g++ eveluates delete's expressio more than once
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114752
Bug ID: 114752
Summary: AVR: internal compiler error. Unknown mode:
const_double:DF
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114752
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114752
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.3
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114779
Bug ID: 114779
Summary: __builtin_constant_p does not work in inline functions
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114779
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Notice that when &SFR is used directly in __builtin_constant_p without an
inline function, then the code works as expected:
int main (void)
{
if (__builtin_constant_p (& SFR))
__asm (".warnin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114779
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
As far as I understand, & SFR has no side effects.
But when it is used as argument to an (inline) function, then it does have side
effects?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114779
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Recognizing more __builtin_constant_p situations is a good thing, IMO.
It would allow to transition from macros to inline functions in such
situations, for example in inline asm that has extra opcodes fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114779
--- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
When this PR won't be fixed, then maybe at least the documentation could
clarify how to port macros to inline functions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114779
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
--- Comment #10 from G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114794
Bug ID: 114794
Summary: [avr] Speed up udivmodqi4
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114794
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114794
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92606
--- Comment #36 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Installed a work-around for v14.2+, v13.3+ and v12.4+
The work-around can be reverted once a proper fix like PR92932 is available.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114975
Bug ID: 114975
Summary: [AVR] Using popcounthi2 for 8-bit values despit
popcountqi2
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114835
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114835
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Wolfgang Hospital from comment #0)
> When establishing the "popcount" of an uint8_t, I've seen GCC to widen the
> value to "half int" and use __popcountqi2 twice.
This is a different issue,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114981
Bug ID: 114981
Summary: [avr] Improve powi implementation
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114981
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #0)
> ... due to PR11093 ...
PR110093
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114975
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114975
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|15.0|14.2
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114981
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115084
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
I don't see what the avr backend can do about it; it's rather a middle-end
thing. And the middle-end would have to know that there is a 24-bit integral
mode in the backend and that its division is prefer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90706
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.5|12.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115065
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
IIUC, this is just about the timing of a branch, which in the general != 0 is
currently taken (takes 2 ticks), but it's better to only take it in the
non-common (= 0) case? So that the common case falls t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115065
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115307
Bug ID: 115307
Summary: [avr] Don't expand isinf() like a built-in
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115307
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115311
Bug ID: 115311
Summary: -fno-builtin-xxx allowing anything for xxx
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115307
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
The isinf part is fixied in v14.2+, but there is also isnan etc. which don't
currently habe an optabs entry, so defining a failing expander won't work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115311
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115307
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> The issue is that we probably fold isinff early. On x86 I see already in
> .original:
>
> return !(ABS_EXPR u<= 3.4028234663852885981170418348451692544e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115317
Bug ID: 115317
Summary: [avr] isinf should return -1 for -Inf
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115317
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115307
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P4 |P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50755
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Roger Sayle from comment #4)
> This appears to be fixed on mainline.
At least the test case passes on newer versions. For a definite answer you'd
have to bisect / find the patch that solved
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53372
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||addr-space
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86776
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
101 - 200 of 538 matches
Mail list logo
