https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78574
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78548
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2016-11-28 00:00:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78580
Bug ID: 78580
Summary: Segfault in gcc with multilib (-m32) and -ffixed-*
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78581
Bug ID: 78581
Summary: Out of memory when preprocessing #include with
-traditional
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78575
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Created attachment 40186 [details]
> gcc7-pr78575.patch
>
> Untested fix.
Does this patch also fix PR 78547?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78575
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It doesn't unfortunately.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78574
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78509
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't have a box with 3dnow, but the assembly for -m32 -O2 -m3dnow -mno-sse
pr42549.c looks identical on x86_64-linux between gcc 6 and trunk.
So, what exact options (implicit or explicit) you are using, w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78568
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.5
Summary|[4.5 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78572
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78574
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78580
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78345
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78582
Bug ID: 78582
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE in walk_stmt_load_store_addr_ops
with -fprofile-generate
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78582
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78579
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78582
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78575
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> It doesn't unfortunately.
Just a wild guess, in PR78547 we trip at:
#2 0x011b4fbb in loc_cmp (x=0x2e9330a8, y=0x2e930fd8) at
../../git/gcc/gcc/var
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #5 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> The cmp %rax, %rax is just a missed optimization, because we manage to
> optimize it only so late that nothing cleans it up afterwards. We cou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78575
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think MEMs just shouldn't be shared, and at least in quick skimming I haven't
found anything the the DEBUG_INSNs that would look invalid.
What I think is wrong is that DECL_INCOMING_RTL and DECL_RTL of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78574
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Seems there is infinite recursion in find_deriving_biv_for_expr.
> It endlessly alternates being called on lhs of
> j_11 = PHI
> and lhs of
> _24 = j_1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78581
--- Comment #1 from Phil Ruffwind ---
After some more testing, it looks the following environment variable must be
set to trigger the crash:
C_INCLUDE_PATH=:
The variable must contain at least 25 characters, and the
/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/7.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20161129 (experimental) [trunk revision 242953] (GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78584
Bug ID: 78584
Summary: Bug in GCC argument parser expandargv
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78583
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78574
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Well, it is iv (maybe biv) in this case:
_24 = j_11 + 1;
is in irreducible sub-loop, but _24 is a loop invariant wrto the sub-loop. But
we don't have such information in GCC. Thus mark_bivs skip
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78342
--- Comment #4 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #3)
> This patch seems to work. It is hard to be sure, this is very hard to
> trigger.
My setup allows me to trigger this kind of ICE with ease. Applying r24294
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70191
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i386-*, x86_64-*
Last reconfir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> > The cmp %rax, %rax is just a missed optimization, because we manage to
> > optimize it only so late that nothing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> (In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> > > The cmp %rax, %rax is just a missed optimization, because we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78505
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78547
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
-gnu-as
--disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-242953-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-nographite-i686
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20161129 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78345
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78586
Bug ID: 78586
Summary: Wrong code caused by printf-return-value
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78211
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78548
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78585
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Happens in reload.
We have:
(insn 10 9 11 2 (set (subreg:V2DI (reg:DI 110) 0)
(plus:V2DI (subreg:V2DI (reg:DI 109) 0)
(subreg:V2DI (reg:DI 123) 0))) "pr78585.c":12 2956 {*addv2di3}
(e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78294
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78587
Bug ID: 78587
Summary: dwarf2out.c:1517:45: runtime error: negation of
-9223372036854775808 cannot be represented in type
'long int [4]'; cast to an unsigned type to negate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68197
--- Comment #4 from Christophe Monat ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> No, it seems underspecified. I have raised it with the C++ committee.
Do you have feedback from the C++ committee ?
I have only easily access to a 2011 sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71307
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78294
--- Comment #28 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
No that the fix is upstream, should r242480 be removed from
libsanitizer/LOCAL_PATCHES?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78586
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78294
--- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Sure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64405
--- Comment #3 from Sergey Belyashov ---
I try to investigate problem agait. But I do not understand, how function can
be ARM_FT_INTERWORKED on armv2? It is possible only on armv4t and armv5.
Moreover, under the case gcc_assert(arm_arch4t || arm_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71292
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at linux dot
vnet.ibm.com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71299
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78585
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78582
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Nov 29 13:20:00 2016
New Revision: 242958
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242958&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Make one extra BB to prevent PHI argument clash (PR
PR gcov-profi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78582
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64405
--- Comment #4 from Sergey Belyashov ---
I found workaround: add -mno-thumb-interwork flag to the compiler. But it is
not good idea, to enable thumb-interwork for pre-armv4 targets by default...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71285
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78588
Bug ID: 78588
Summary: rtlanal.c:5210:38: runtime error: shift exponent
4294967295 is too large for 64-bit type 'long unsigned
int'
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78586
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71307
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmm, I distinctly remember it being a regression but when I try today with the
branches they all generate the bad code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78544
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Burgess ---
I only suggested the alternative patch due to the issues you raised in comment
#2. I agree with you that extending the test to cover darwin would be by far
the better solution.
I'm unable to test your prop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi Prathamesh, I will check on it and get back to you. Thanks for looking at
this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78576
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Andreas, it can't be a lack of accuracy, because 27.0 = 2^4 x 1.6875. There
can't be any rounding error; this is an exact number in all floating-point
representations.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78586
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- gcc/gimple-ssa-sprintf.c.jj 2016-11-28 23:50:20.0 +0100
+++ gcc/gimple-ssa-sprintf.c2016-11-29 15:03:29.201488577 +0100
@@ -1159,16 +1159,15 @@ format_integer (const conversion_spec &s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71436
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58175
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Nov 29 14:15:29 2016
New Revision: 242960
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242960&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-29 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/58175
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37336
Bug 37336 depends on bug 58175, which changed state.
Bug 58175 Summary: [OOP] Incorrect warning message on scalar finalizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58175
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58175
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78356
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78589
Bug ID: 78589
Summary: g++ prints instead of a function name when
warning in an OpenMP outlined function
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70907
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70826
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sch...@linux-m68k.org
--- Comment #12 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71436
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
>From what I can see *load_multiple is intended to catch load-multiple of more
than 4 registers (though it should work correctly for fewer than that).
In this case where we're loading 2 registers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71436
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Ooh, ouch. Maybe load_multiple needs a "&& reload_completed" predicate?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38377
Vincent Lefèvre changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78573
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71436
--- Comment #9 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Or reload_completed || lra_in_progress, or punt on pseudos in the predicate.
I tried punting on pseudos in the predicate (in ldm_stm_operation_p) an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71436
--- Comment #10 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I just noticed that our load_multiple_with_writeback pattern is also guarded on
reload_in_progress || reload_completed so perhaps this is the way to go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71436
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or reload_completed || lra_in_progress, or punt on pseudos in the predicate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68838
--- Comment #3 from David Edelsohn ---
.good: 0 .fail: 1
width: 5000 size: 33554432
str_01[0]: 97
oss_01.str()[0]: 32
The string is filled with L'a' (0x97). The stringstream is filled with space
(0x32) and width is not set to 0 although size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78589
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78590
Bug ID: 78590
Summary: [7 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vget_lane.c in
change_zero_ext in combine
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78590
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.2.1
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78590
--- Comment #1 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In the call:
x = gen_lowpart_SUBREG (mode, x);
the x is:
(float_truncate:HF (reg:DF 79))
and mode is SImode.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78586
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 40190
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40190&action=edit
gcc7-pr78586.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38377
--- Comment #11 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
Ditto in C with _Static_assert, as soon as optimizations are enabled:
void f (void)
{
int t = 1;
_Static_assert (__builtin_constant_p (t) ? t : 1, "err");
}
$ gcc-6 -c fail.c
$ gcc-6 -c fail.c -O
fai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68838
--- Comment #4 from David Edelsohn ---
On 32 bit AIX, wchar is 16 bits, two bytes. The libstdc++ code prepends
33554432 of fill, which is exactly 2*16777216 or 2^24 2 byte characters. Why is
2^24 special?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78590
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I suspect we want to extend the
&& !paradoxical_subreg_p (XEXP (x, 0))
check to also check REG_P (SUBREG_REG (XEXP (x, 0))).
The pattern processed in this case is:
(set (reg:SI 80)
(zero_exte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78586
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68838
--- Comment #5 from David Edelsohn ---
Sigh. The test is running out of memory.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72774
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Nov 29 16:25:01 2016
New Revision: 242965
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242965&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
spellcheck bugfixes: don't offer the goal string as a suggestion
gcc/c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72786
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Nov 29 16:25:01 2016
New Revision: 242965
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242965&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
spellcheck bugfixes: don't offer the goal string as a suggestion
gcc/c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78313
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Nov 29 16:25:01 2016
New Revision: 242965
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242965&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
spellcheck bugfixes: don't offer the goal string as a suggestion
gcc/c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77922
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Nov 29 16:25:01 2016
New Revision: 242965
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242965&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
spellcheck bugfixes: don't offer the goal string as a suggestion
gcc/c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78576
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78532
Maxim Ostapenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m.ostapenko at samsung dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71436
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77922
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72786
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78313
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78532
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose ---
glibc 2.24 and linux 4.8.7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78576
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
What are the actual high and low doubles in the return from powl? The
simplest reason for the reported result here would be that powl returns a
result very slightly less than 27 (which is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78573
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
1 - 100 of 212 matches
Mail list logo
