https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93465
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Thomas, can I ping on this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93314
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47969
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47969&action=edit
gcc10-pr93399.patch
Untested fix. This function is what we use in the gimple dumps for the
DEBUG_STM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93949
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94004
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93159
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ping.
||2020-03-04
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|[9/10 Regression] GCC adds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93962
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So do you think you could attach preprocessed sources from both the working and
failing builds so that we can look up at the differences?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91993
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91993
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47971
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47971&action=edit
gcc10-pr91993-wip.patch
As implemented in this completely untested (so far) patch, which makes the
-Wconversion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94041
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94037
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94040
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93399
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] |[8/9 Regression] Annotate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94041
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
You were faster.
I came up with:
struct T { T (); ~T (); static int t; };
int T::t = 0;
struct A { A () noexcept; A (const T &) noexcept; const T *a; };
struct B { ~B (); };
struct Pair { A a; B b; };
T::T (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94044
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94045
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems to be var-tracking. I see e.g. 17900 nested find_base_term calls.
E.g. the setupUi method has 6372 basic blocks, 10337 edges, which is still not
enough to make var-tracking bail out, but contains almos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94045
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Shall we punt in find_base_term for VALUEs if visited_vals.length () is larger
than a new param with some reasonable default? Or do it only during
var-tracking and not during alias analysis?
With:
--- gcc/al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93888
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yeah, I'm considering a backport, but didn't want to rush it into 9.3, want to
wait a few weeks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94045
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91710
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91913
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91913
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] ICE in |[8/9 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94045
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- gcc/alias.c.jj 2020-03-03 19:39:53.228598307 +0100
+++ gcc/alias.c 2020-03-05 13:32:10.115235397 +0100
@@ -2005,6 +2005,10 @@ find_base_term (rtx x, vec 2048
+ && cselib_preserved_value_p (va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90311
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'd like to ping this, anyone familiar with ARM instruction set as well as the
backend can have a look?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90311
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If fixed on the trunk, I think it would be nice to commit the testcase (there
is nothing arm specific on it, so I'd say it should go into
gcc.c-torture/execute/).
I can handle that.
at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'll handle it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94046
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This shows a couple of suspect conversions in macros, will need to verify all
of them:
grep '(__v[0-9]*[qhsd][if])(__m\(128\|256\|512\)\(\|d\|i\))' *.h | grep -v
'\((__v2di)(__m128i)\|(__v4si)(__m128i)\|(__v8
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Since r10-1302-gc3337b44c40dd1545e00034cb8e1ae1c0dae0fa6
the following test FAILs on armv7hl-linux-gnueabi (but not on i686 or x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94050
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94046
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47980
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47980&action=edit
gcc10-pr94046.patch
Full untested patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94046
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed for 9.3+ and 10+ so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79755
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This does happen even with 9.2 and current trunk, you just need to read the
first line in #c0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79755
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--enable-checking=release (the default on release branches) is not
--enable-checking=yes (which is needed to reproduce this checking
error-recovery failure).
||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |9.3
Summary|[9/10 Regression] |[9/10 Regression]
|-std=gnu++20 causes failure |-std=gnu++20
||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Version|unknown |10.0
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
Summary|ICE (starting/ending union |[8/9/10 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94066
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
clang++ diagnostics is
assignment to member 'y' of union with active member 'a' is not allowed in a
constant expression
Note, in C++17 things are clear and we shouldn't reject all changes of union
active memb
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Since r10-6527-gaaa26bf496a646778ac861aed124d960b5bf549f we ICE with
-Wconversion on
static inline unsigned short
swap (unsigned short x
|ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-06
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94067
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47986
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47986&action=edit
gcc10-pr94067.patch
Untested fix.
|NEW
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-06
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |9.3
Summary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94068
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase with -std=c++17 or -std=c++2a:
enum class A { A1, A2 };
A foo ();
long foo (int);
template
void
bar ()
{
const auto c{foo ()};
}
at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47989
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47989&action=edit
gcc10-pr94045.patch
Patch I'll be testing.
,
||amacleod at redhat dot com,
||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For the second testcase, I think we could in undefined_shift_range_check or its
2 callers intersect the value range of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94076
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Well, 64-bit time_t/off_t/ino_t on an arch where they weren't previously 64-bit
is an ABI change which of course needs to have support added to various parts
of the toolchain, including libsanitizer (for whic
|1
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
||uros at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-09
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Started with r10-1938
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94088
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Guess *testqi_ext_3 needs to be adjusted to test CCZmode instead of CCNOmode if
the constant we'll be created matches the new testdi_1 conditions.
at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47997
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47997&action=edit
gcc10-pr94088.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94094
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94045
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93800
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
commit r10-7087-g314b91220a07bd63f13c58e37f1b5b9430a3702b
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Mon Mar 9 14:13:04 2020 +0100
Restore alignment in rs6000 target.
PR target/93800
* config
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94050
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
commit r10-7089-g8475f2902a2e2ca5f7ace8bc5265bd1a815dda20
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Thu Mar 5 14:07:25 2020 -0500
c++: Fix ABI issue with alignas on armv7hl [PR94050]
The static_assert in the f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94066
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The standard seems to say a union member becomes active when the constructor
finishes, not when it starts, so what wording prevents changing the active
member during the construction?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93930
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The cost changes affect the RTL LIM.-Set in insn 22 is invariant (0), cost 32,
depends on
-Set in insn 27 is invariant (1), cost 32, depends on
-Set in insn 32 is invariant (2), cost 32, depends on
-Set in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92879
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93922
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Testcase modified to be usable in the testsuite:
// PR c++/93922
// { dg-do link { target c++11 } }
template
struct A {
A () {}
template
A (A const &) {}
~A () {}
};
int t;
struct B {};
struct C :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93922
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The problem as I understand it is that
#1 0x00abeb95 in mark_used (decl=, complain=3) at ../../gcc/cp/decl2.c:5686
#2 0x00987243 in build_over_call (cand=0x375c910, flags=35,
complain=3) at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94067
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Started with r10-619-g5879ab5fafedc8f6f9bfe95a4cf8501b0df90edd only because
that enabled -ftree-loop-distribute-patterns at -O2.
With -O2
at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48004
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48004&action=edit
gcc10-pr94114.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94088
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92303
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #44 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, with the reversion, can this be closed as FIXED?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93895
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93596
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94111
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94111
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=94117
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94117
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Maybe not, as it doesn't seem to be a regression, it has never been rejected
(at least not in anything since r20 I've tried).
clang++ rejects with
exception specification is not available until end of cla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93781
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, 7.x is not supported anymore. If this is going to be changed, it would
be for GCC 11, different source file, different routine...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94111
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48009
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48009&action=edit
gcc10-pr94111.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94106
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92096
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93962
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94121
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93962
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ok, I'll test a patch with abs_hwi in both spots then. There will be an
assertion in there that it is not INT64_MIN.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92303
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That IMHO just made a latent issue no longer latent.
I'd say it is either a LRA issue or some backend issue related to RA, on a
relatively short function LRA shouldn't take hours.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93895
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92303
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
richi's change basically on the testcase just changed 6 times in the function:
hl_.v_ = a11_334;
- accvhi4__777 = hl_.hilo_.hi_;
- accvlo4__778 = hl_.hilo_.lo_;
+ _612 = BIT_FIELD_REF ;
+ _613 = BIT_FI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92303
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think the difference on the reduced testcase between success (first) and hang
(second) is:
(insn 10 16 21 3 (set (reg/v:DI 117 [ hl_ ])
(subreg:DI (reg/v:V8QI 114 [ v ]) 0)) "ultrasp13.c":19:105 125
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94121
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92303
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The reason that the non-lowpart subreg is allowed here is:
sparc_regmode_natural_size (machine_mode mode)
which returns for MODE_VECTOR_INT modes 4 rather than UNITS_PER_WORD (and for
MODE_FLOAT too).
IRA dec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94123
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94125
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94125
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems it is the ldist pass, which fails to figure out that k[c+3] load in the
loop might alias with the k[c+1] = 0; store and moves all the 3 stores into a
memset after the loop.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94125
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92303
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, quite early during LRA we get:
(insn 14 13 18 3 (set (reg:DI 9 %o1)
(zero_extend:DI (subreg:SI (mem/c:V8QI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 101 %sfp)
(const_int -8 [0xfff8])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92096
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93901
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
commit r10-7116-g481fcfe6fec156ca2a6baea4b623076e2eefa6a6
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Tue Mar 10 17:31:33 2020 -0400
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93596
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
commit r10-7115-gdf15a82804e1f7f4a7432670b33387779de46549
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Tue Mar 10 17:51:46 2020 -0400
c++: Fix ICE with omitted template args [PR93956].
reshape_init only wants to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94041
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
commit r10-7110-g14af5d9b19b0f4ee1d929e505e245ae5c2f6bdc6
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Tue Mar 10 16:05:18 2020 -0400
c++: Partially revert patch for PR66139.
The patch for 66139 exposed a long-st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93922
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
commit r10-7110-g14af5d9b19b0f4ee1d929e505e245ae5c2f6bdc6
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Tue Mar 10 16:05:18 2020 -0400
c++: Partially revert patch for PR66139.
The patch for 66139 exposed a long-st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52320
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94134
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94114
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] ICE in |[8/9 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94111
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
commit r10-7121-g312992f5a07ca25f94d538b08401789c2c764293
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Wed Mar 11 09:33:52 2020 +0100
dfp: Fix decimal_to_binary [PR94111]
As e.g. decimal_from_decnumber shows, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93962
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
commit r10-7122-g60342fdbfb0630243d2b85d2ca45204ded990b17
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Wed Mar 11 09:34:59 2020 +0100
value-prof: Fix abs uses in value-prof.c [PR93962]
Jeff has recently fixed du
1 - 100 of 41611 matches
Mail list logo
