https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92463
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68606
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92609
Bug ID: 92609
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in warn_types_mismatch, at
ipa-devirt.c:1000 since r265519
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92609
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48829
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Bloc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92608
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92600
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92158
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92534
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Hmm, the fix for PR91790 was indeed incorrect. But the whole realignment code
is somewhat "old"...
Ideally we'd move the vect_setup_realigment code down to after we computed
the dataref_ptr here:
/*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92610
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92610
Bug ID: 92610
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in calc_dfs_tree, at
dominance.c:458 since r270940
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30357
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 91790, which changed state.
Bug 91790 Summary: ICE: verify_ssa failed (error: definition in block 2 follows
the use)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91790
What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91790
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Nov 21 09:16:46 2019
New Revision: 278544
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278544&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-21 Richard Biener
Revert
2019-09-17 Richar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91790
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91790
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Nov 21 09:18:06 2019
New Revision: 278545
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278545&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-21 Richard Biener
Revert
2019-09-17 Richar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92611
Bug ID: 92611
Summary: auto vectorization failed for type promotation
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92071
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> I'd say this should be fixed in the arm backend, instead of asserts it
> should check whether operands are aligned and if not, perform unaligned load
> or stor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82520
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92600
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection,|
|needs-reduction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63181
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84889
--- Comment #19 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #18)
> @David: Can we close this now?
I'm guessing he's probably waiting for his static analyzer to be merged; that
patch series looked like it had some stuff relevant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91927
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think the following patch is the correct fix:
diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-simd.md
b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-simd.md
index ad4676bc167..787323255cb 100644
--- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-simd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92597
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92612
Bug ID: 92612
Summary: [10 Regression] Linker error in 525.x264_r after
r278509
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92612
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89800
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58875
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92597
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If it would use %0 and %1, it would find they are different and would need to
use an instruction that can copy that in between those.
Whether this PR is valid or invalid is unclear, matching constraints for "
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92597
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And the short examples do exactly what the original source does:
//taken from google benchmark
template
inline void DoNotOptimize(Tp const& value) {
asm volatile("" : : "r,m"(value) : "memory");
}
templat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 92612, which changed state.
Bug 92612 Summary: [10 Regression] Linker error in 525.x264_r after r278509
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92612
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92612
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92612
--- Comment #2 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Following patch fixes that:
>
> diff --git a/benchspec/CPU/525.x264_r/src/ldecod_src/inc/configfile.h
> b/benchspec/CPU/525.x264_r/src/ldecod_src/inc/configfile.h
> index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92557
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92002
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91027
--- Comment #6 from ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #2)
>
> I am not really fluent with d. Does d have something like ODR?
> If it doesn't then we need to arrange free_lang data to not consider d
> types to b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91027
--- Comment #7 from ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #3)
> Hi,
> this patch triggers another confusion in ipa-devirt.
> It tries to build type inheritnace graph but since D frotnend produces
> only functions wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92613
Bug ID: 92613
Summary: Bogus warning with -cpp and -fpreprocessed
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91027
--- Comment #8 from ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #3)
> Hi,
> this patch triggers another confusion in ipa-devirt.
> It tries to build type inheritnace graph but since D frotnend produces
> only functions wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68606
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92608
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92609
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30357
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #6)
> At least as far as this particular testcase goes, there's a warning from
> -Wuninitialized at least... if you initialize parentValue to EP_VAL2 like I
> think y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92002
--- Comment #5 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 47319
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47319&action=edit
preprocessed tree-ssanames.c
I'm attaching the preprocessed tree-ssanames.c; wide-int.cc is equally affected
but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92610
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #1 from Ri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92611
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92596
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92524
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92614
Bug ID: 92614
Summary: Bootstrap broken due to libgo run-time
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91355
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 21 10:59:27 2019
New Revision: 278548
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278548&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/91355
* tree-ssa-sink.c (select_best_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92614
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92605
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92597
--- Comment #6 from Klaus Leppkes ---
As it might be purely related to google benchmark, I opened an issues for
google benchmark citing this bug report:
https://github.com/google/benchmark/issues/903
I search for some doc and found
"g" : Any reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92524
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63181
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #4)
> This one should be moved to its own separate option per bug 7651
Indeed it should, and if we add -Wdangling-field then that would be the ideal
option to move i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91786
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71785
--- Comment #16 from Aleksey ---
> > It would be helpful if you give the explanation how these options affect
> > "un-factoring".
>
> What options? -fno-reorder-blocks? Those doo the same to this code as
> they do anywhere else: the compiler d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92417
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66773
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Marjamäki ---
Problems;
* Code that performs comparison properly gets a warning.
* Code where programmer makes a mistake with a cast does not generate a
warning.
* This warning encourage programmers to cast and wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92596
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
So I think the issue is that we have
/* Calculate the unrolling factor based on the smallest type. */
poly_uint64 unrolling_factor
= calculate_unrolling_factor (max_nunits, group_size);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92596
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
So for
patt_17 = (long int) patt_18;
for example vect_get_vector_types_for_stmt now computes V2DI and V2SI as
vectype and nunits_vectype. I think that's undesirable.
scalar_type = vect_get_smallest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92615
Bug ID: 92615
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in extract_insn
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: inline-asm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66773
--- Comment #10 from Daniel Marjamäki ---
Well I am just a happy gcc user.. if some gcc maintainer thinks this ticket is
invalid feel free to close it. I can't expect that everybody will think just
like me. :-)
As a Cppcheck developer I am dissa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92616
Bug ID: 92616
Summary: Inconsistency in time between system_clock::now() and
time(nullptr)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92534
--- Comment #7 from Kewen Lin ---
Thanks for your confirmation and notes! Yes, the realignment codes won't take
effect from Power8 which supports unaligned vector load/store. I'll learn the
code, follow your suggestion and cook some patches later
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92616
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I can reproduce it, but I think this has to be a glibc problem. Libstdc++
simply calls clock_gettime(3), and both that and time(3) come from glibc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92616
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I see the same result when using clock_gettime directly instead of
system_clock::now()
#include
#include
#include
#include
void dumpNow() {
struct timespec ts;
clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME, &ts);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92596
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
There's also a missed optimization showing - we analyze the group_size == 3
case
successfully but fail to consider splitting it as it fails the unroll check
because
/* We consider breaking the group o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92002
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase:
extern void fancy_abort(const char *, int, const char *)
__attribute__((__noreturn__)) __attribute__((__cold__));
typedef union tree_node *tree;
typedef const union tree_node *const_tree;
en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92616
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> I can reproduce it, but I think this has to be a glibc problem. Libstdc++
> simply calls clock_gettime(3), and both that and time(3) come from glibc.
Correct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91927
--- Comment #10 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> I think the following patch is the correct fix:
> diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-simd.md
> b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-simd.md
> index ad4676bc167..787323255cb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92596
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
So I managed to commit to trunk:
+ poly_uint64 this_max_nunits = 1;
slp_tree res = vect_build_slp_tree_2 (vinfo, stmts, group_size, max_nunits,
matches, npermutes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92002
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92616
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
gettimeofday agrees with clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME):
void dumpNow() {
struct timespec ts;
clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME, &ts);
auto const now = time(nullptr);
struct timeval tv;
gettimeofday(&t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91355
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 21 13:53:57 2019
New Revision: 278551
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278551&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/91355
* tree-ssa-sink.c (select_best_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92596
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
The second testcase still ICEs though, so investigating that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92566
--- Comment #6 from Kewen Lin ---
Great! I was thinking there whether exists some array to map from mode to
vector, but missed this one. Good to know we have this kind of function!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92343
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92615
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92617
Bug ID: 92617
Summary: Invalid loop optimization: no exit condition
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92617
--- Comment #1 from Piotr Seweryn ---
Created attachment 47323
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47323&action=edit
Pre-processed file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92617
--- Comment #2 from Piotr Seweryn ---
Created attachment 47324
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47324&action=edit
Assembler file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92596
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> The second testcase still ICEs though, so investigating that.
Which is more fun. We have group_size == vf == 1 here but V2SI as vectype.
t2.c:17:1: note: B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92617
--- Comment #3 from Piotr Seweryn ---
Similar problem occurs when -O2 or -O3 is used, there is also an endless loop,
however different assembler code is generated. I can also provided appropriate
.ii and .s files for O2 and O3 case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92566
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47306|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92617
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92617
--- Comment #5 from Piotr Seweryn ---
Obviously there is no return statement and warning was issued, however endless
loop isn't the expected result, don't you agree? And falling-through to the
next piece of code is even worse, coze we are falling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92596
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Nov 21 15:01:17 2019
New Revision: 278555
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278555&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-21 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92596
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92158
--- Comment #10 from Jonny Grant ---
C++ 'enum class' gives a nice error for conversion to unsigned.
Example:
enum class E { a = 1 } ;
unsigned i = E::a;
I've asked this before, will just write again so it is on a ticket. I
understand C++ all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92450
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Nov 21 15:27:46 2019
New Revision: 278570
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278570&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92450 - ICE with invalid nested name specifier.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92450
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
--- Comment #30 from Jan Hubicka ---
Reconfirmed that we still take ages to build the testcase (early inliner is
still running for me)
The early inliner issue here is caused by tree-inline removing individual
clones one by one. Each time a clon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|hubicka at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86504
--- Comment #10 from Joel Hutton ---
Should be fixed on trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86504
--- Comment #11 from Joel Hutton ---
Should be fixed on trunk by r277784
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60243
--- Comment #27 from Jan Hubicka ---
profile_estimate issue is still here, inliner and early inliner issues seems
solved. Seems that ipa_profile just orders the nodes for propagation in wrong
way - we propagate from callers to callees while topos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 86504, which changed state.
Bug 86504 Summary: vectorization failure for a nest loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86504
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86504
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92618
Bug ID: 92618
Summary: [10 Regression] error: type mismatch in binary
expression in reassoc since r273490
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyword
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92618
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
1 - 100 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
