||2010.12.20 09:00:13
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |irar at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47001
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
||2010.12.25 11:49:58
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |irar at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47057
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
||irar at il dot ibm.com
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |irar at il dot ibm.com
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #3 from Ira Rosen 2011-01-04 11:58:35 UTC
---
This shouldn't be recognized as reduction, because the value of the one b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47139
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47860
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47860
--- Comment #4 from Ira Rosen 2011-02-24 08:37:07 UTC
---
I tried to implement this last year:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/msg00018.html and
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-08/msg00631.html. But I don't think I
want to contin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47890
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
--- Comment #4 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47890
--- Comment #5 from Ira Rosen 2011-02-26 14:45:30 UTC
---
Similar to your patch, Richard, but with different related stmt:
@@ -2886,6 +3024,10 @@ get_initial_def_for_induction (gimple iv
gimple_assign_set_lhs (new_stmt, induc_def);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50133
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50133
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50138
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50138
--- Comment #4 from Ira Rosen 2011-08-31 09:42:18 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #3)
> That's up to you to decide, you are the maintainer ;)
Yes, but not the release manager...
> My comment was just in the light of a longish ChangeLog entry, have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50178
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
--- Comment #5 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50178
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50208
--- Comment #3 from Ira Rosen 2011-09-01 11:42:24 UTC
---
Created attachment 25159
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25159
patch
Right. The attached patch does the suggested checks also in
vect_handle_widen_mult_by_const(). I'l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50208
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
--- Comment #4 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50208
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50374
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
--- Comment #1 from
||irar at il dot ibm.com
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |irar at il dot ibm.com
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #2 from Ira Rosen 2011-09-15 11:40:59 UTC
---
The problem is that we don't support loop peeling for outer loops, but we
su
||irar at il dot ibm.com
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |irar at il dot ibm.com
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #4 from Ira Rosen 2011-09-15 12:36:04 UTC
---
Looks like a mix up in the order of stmts in reduction SLP node. I'll t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435
--- Comment #3 from Ira Rosen 2011-09-16 16:18:37 UTC
---
Well, at least the loop is not vectorized now :).
Could you please attach the slp dump (-fdump-tree-slp-details)?
Thanks,
Ira
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435
--- Comment #5 from Ira Rosen 2011-09-18 08:52:56 UTC
---
Thanks.
Data dependence analysis can't determine dependence between src and dst
although they have _restrict_, and it works fine on x86_64-suse-linux for
example... Does darwin have a kno
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50413
--- Comment #7 from Ira Rosen 2011-09-18 10:17:12 UTC
---
Right. The data-refs analysis fails for the bit assignment, and SLP marks this
statement as not vectorizable and continues with the vectorization of other
statements, which is incorrect be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435
--- Comment #8 from Ira Rosen 2011-09-18 10:48:43 UTC
---
Looks like there is a difference ;)
I guess it succeeds with the patch to avoid loop vectorization and the fix of
restrict together?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435
--- Comment #10 from Ira Rosen 2011-09-18 10:55:19 UTC
---
Thanks, I'll commit it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50414
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435
--- Comment #13 from Ira Rosen 2011-09-19 08:59:44 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Note that I have replaced all the occurrences of __restrict with __restrict__
> I have found in gcc.dg/vect/* and bb-slp-25.c is the only test for which it
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50413
--- Comment #14 from Ira Rosen 2011-09-20 06:23:54 UTC
---
The basic block that got vectorized on these platforms is in main(). I am going
to remove it and leave only shift(), since the main purpose of the test is to
check that shift () doesn't g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50374
--- Comment #6 from Ira Rosen 2011-09-20 08:27:08 UTC
---
Thanks for working on this!
It looks like the problem is with the way the stmts are marked. We don't insert
pattern stmts now, so the things are more tricky. I'll try to fix this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50374
--- Comment #7 from Ira Rosen 2011-09-20 11:45:53 UTC
---
Created attachment 25322
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25322
fix
Here is the fix (it's a diff relative to your patch).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50374
--- Comment #8 from Ira Rosen 2011-09-20 11:47:00 UTC
---
Created attachment 25323
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25323
complete patch including my fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50374
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25322|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50374
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25323|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50451
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |irar at gcc dot gnu.org
|gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50374
--- Comment #15 from Ira Rosen 2011-09-21 12:20:47 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Another thing is that this really ought to work even with -ftree-pre, having a
> vectorization that requires users to disable PRE would be weird. I believe
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50451
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50374
--- Comment #18 from Ira Rosen 2011-09-22 07:51:35 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #16)
> and -3.c fails with an ICE in the vectorizer, Ira,
> could you look at that?
--- tree-vect-stmts.c 2011-09-22 09:48:34.0 +0200
+++ tree-vect-stmts
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50412
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50413
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
||2011-09-26
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com,
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Ira Rosen 2011-09-26 07:18:29 UTC
---
Looks like the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50596
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
--- Comment #10 from
||2011-10-06
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
Component|target |tree-optimization
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |irar at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50635
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50693
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
--- Comment #11 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50727
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
||2011-10-16
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Ira Rosen 2011-10-16 09:41:27 UTC
---
Tested only with the vectorizer tests.
Index: tree-vect-data-refs.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50727
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
||2011-10-16
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Ira Rosen 2011-10-16 14:51:58 UTC
---
I see these failures on powerpc64-suse-linux.
pr37482.c seems to fail during expand of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50746
--- Comment #6 from Ira Rosen 2011-10-17 18:10:39 UTC
---
pr37482.c is now ok on powerpc64-suse-linux.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50746
--- Comment #7 from Ira Rosen 2011-10-17 18:49:20 UTC
---
I'll fix vect-114.c. It indeed doesn't need realignment. The vectorization
failed before switching to optab because of the type mismatch between the mask
and the data.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50789
--- Comment #2 from Ira Rosen 2011-10-19 08:47:03 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #0)
> To vectorize the above I'm afraid we'd need to modify tree-data-ref.c as well
> as tree-vect-data-ref.c, because the memory accesses aren't affine and already
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50789
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
--- Comment #4 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50730
--- Comment #3 from Ira Rosen 2011-10-22 12:09:30 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> First blush, looks like something could be abstracted as a function or a
> macro?!?
Hmm, I don't know. There is a 'continue' there...
||2011-10-22
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |irar at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Ira Rosen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50819
--- Comment #2 from Ira Rosen 2011-10-22 12:27:51 UTC
---
Created attachment 25574
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25574
Patch for this PR and also fo PR 50730
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50873
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
||2011-11-01
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #7 from Ira Rosen 2011-11-01 08:25:08 UTC
---
Reduced testcase:
_Bool data[128];
void foo (_Bool *init)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 128
||2011-11-02
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |irar at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Ira Rosen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50912
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50730
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50819
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
||2011-11-07
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com,
||jakub at redhat dot com
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Ira Rosen 2011-11-07 06:58:10 UTC
---
Confirmed on powerpc64
||irar at il dot ibm.com
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |irar at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #2 from Ira Rosen 2011-11-08 10:22:53 UTC
---
Some of the patterns added lately use pattern def stmt and set its vectype
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51015
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51000
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P3
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51062
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51000
--- Comment #5 from Ira Rosen 2011-11-09 16:24:05 UTC
---
Looks good. Thanks.
||2011-11-09
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |irar at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Ira Rosen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51058
--- Comment #4 from Ira Rosen 2011-11-09 17:40:26 UTC
---
Thanks.
Index: tree-vect-slp.c
===
--- tree-vect-slp.c (revision 181190)
+++ tree-vect-slp.c (working copy)
@@ -219
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51058
--- Comment #10 from Ira Rosen 2011-11-11 06:03:14 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #9)
>
> patch fixes the ICE, but then the scalar stmt stays in the tree at the end of
> *.vect pass (and at least in this case is DCEd afterwards).
I wonder if we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51058
--- Comment #11 from Ira Rosen 2011-11-11 06:07:05 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #5)
>
> Well, the original code in mdbx.f90 has the interleaving group of 3 (I only
> changed the "decoration" around the loop to keep a valid code).
Sorry, you ar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52073
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
--- Comment #5 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52091
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
--- Comment #5 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52091
--- Comment #7 from Ira Rosen 2012-02-02 15:16:18 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > I think we should fail to vectorize D.2030_19 = prephitmp.17_21 & 65535, or
> > any
> > other non-phi/not vect_double_reduction_def
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52091
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51269
--- Comment #1 from Ira Rosen 2011-11-23 10:46:00 UTC
---
Created attachment 25895
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25895
patch
Right, this looks like a bug. The attached (not really tested) patch tries to
propagate prologue_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51269
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
--- Comment #2 from
||2011-11-27
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |irar at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Ira Rosen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51301
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
gcc dot |irar at il dot ibm.com
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #7 from Ira Rosen 2011-12-04 10:50:41 UTC
---
Created attachment 25985
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25985
patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51499
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51499
--- Comment #3 from Ira Rosen 2011-12-11 08:48:24 UTC
---
It gets vectorized with 4.7.
I guess, due to this 4.7 patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg00620.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51499
--- Comment #5 from Ira Rosen 2011-12-11 13:30:41 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Looks like there has been some great progress in gcc 4.7!
>
> Still I think it behaves slightly buggy.
>
> (1) In this case it should work without -funsafe-mat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51499
--- Comment #8 from Ira Rosen 2011-12-12 11:03:59 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> While investigating pr51597, I have found that vectorized loops in programs as
> simple as
>
> subroutine spmmult(x,b,ad)
> implicit none
> integer, parameter
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51499
--- Comment #9 from Ira Rosen 2011-12-12 11:13:24 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #7)
>
> In some cases it might be necessary but not here:
>
> sum1+=a;
> sum2+=a;
>
> gives exactly the same result as
>
> (sum1, sum2) += (a, a);
>
So, you a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51499
--- Comment #11 from Ira Rosen 2011-12-12 11:27:26 UTC
---
Right. We need to check that there is no load permutation.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51499
--- Comment #14 from Ira Rosen 2011-12-13 16:27:19 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #13)
>
> However, I don't fully understand Richard Guenther's example. Yes his
> example requires -fassociative-math to be vectorized, however, my example
> would tr
||2011-12-18
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Ira Rosen 2011-12-18 11:41:41 UTC
---
Caused by
r182388 | jakub | 2011-12-15 22:47:29 +0200 (Thu, 15 Dec 2011) | 27 lines
||2011-12-27
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |irar at il dot ibm.com
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Ira Rosen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51684
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51693
Bug #: 51693
Summary: New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on
powerpc64-suse-linux
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51693
--- Comment #2 from Ira Rosen 2011-12-28 12:27:18 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I though that if {vect_aligned_arrays} isn't true, than arrays could
> be aligned even after peeling - that's why I added such check.
Sorry, I don't understand
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51693
--- Comment #5 from Ira Rosen 2011-12-28 13:11:53 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #4)
> In vect-peel-3.c we actually assume that vector length is 16 byte. Here is the
> loop body:
> suma += ia[i];
> sumb += ib[i+5];
> sumc += ic[i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51693
--- Comment #7 from Ira Rosen 2011-12-29 07:37:53 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> > Yes, vector_sizes_32B_16B seems to be ok in that case.
> Other two tests (vect-multitypes-1.c and no-section-anchors-vect-69.c) look
> like having the same pr
gcc dot |irar at il dot ibm.com
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #2 from Ira Rosen 2012-01-01 09:43:12 UTC
---
Created attachment 26210
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26210
patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51704
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
||2012-01-02
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from Ira Rosen 2012-01-02 07:01:10 UTC
---
I see on powerpc64-suse-linux:
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr44507.c -flto execution test
FAIL: gcc.dg
1 - 100 of 218 matches
Mail list logo