https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82820
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
ldm/stm should not be used with unaligned memory. Yes it was emulated when
using the arm kernel but the arm64 kernel does not emulate them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82820
Bug ID: 82820
Summary: [arm32]ldm/stm instructions Bus error on AARCH64
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82788
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82820
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82820
--- Comment #2 from zwzhangwen.zhang at huawei dot com ---
Hi,
I have a testcase for example:
typedef struct structA{
int a;
int b;
int c;
}A;
typedef struct structB{
int iData;
A a;
}B;
int test(A aa)
{
aa.a = 123;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82818
--- Comment #2 from dark_sylinc at yahoo dot com.ar ---
Created attachment 42540
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42540&action=edit
Workaround. Uncomment "//a.~FastArray();" to make the crash come back
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82818
--- Comment #1 from dark_sylinc at yahoo dot com.ar ---
Update:
1. Confirmed to be broken with gcc 7.2
2. When I said fsanitize; I meant fsanitize=undefined
3. When code is slightly modified as in the new attachment, the crash is gone.
But it app
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82819
Bug ID: 82819
Summary: [8 Regression] [graphite] ICE in set_codegen_error, at
graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c:206
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Key
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82818
Bug ID: 82818
Summary: Bad Codegen, delete does not check for nullptrs
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81957
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81957
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Nov 3 00:13:06 2017
New Revision: 254361
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254361&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2017-11-02 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/81957
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79868
--- Comment #10 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Thu Nov 2 21:58:05 2017
New Revision: 254360
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254360&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79868
* gcc.target/aarch64/spellcheck_1.c: Update
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79868
--- Comment #9 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Thu Nov 2 21:56:00 2017
New Revision: 254359
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254359&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79868
* config/aarch64/aarch64-c.c (aarch64_pragma_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70401
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57728
Jens Maurer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jens.maurer at gmx dot net
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82710
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81096
--- Comment #7 from Wilco ---
Is this now fixed on PPC too? If so, it can be closed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82710
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Thu Nov 2 18:26:29 2017
New Revision: 254349
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254349&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR c++/82710] false positive paren warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82817
Bug ID: 82817
Summary: C frontend errors on SSA name from REG_EXPR
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82641
--- Comment #7 from Yichao Yu ---
It would be great if `+crc` can work if it's not ambiguous. Requiring
`arch=armv8-a+crc` works for me too, and it'll just require more preprocessor
checks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82813
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
> The warning will go away once pr80545 is fixed but I wonder if a better
> (independent) solution in this case is to detect that the code is, in fact,
> unreachable, and avoid emitting it to begin with.
Yes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82803
--- Comment #3 from Alex Mohr ---
FWIW a loop is not required. This generates 4 calls to __tls_get_addr:
static thread_local int x;
int g();
int f() {
int *px = &x;
if (g()) *px += g();
if (g()) *px += g();
if (g()) *px += g();
return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82813
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||80545
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82788
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Assigne
Thread model: posix
gcc version 8.0.0 20171102 (experimental) [trunk revision 254338] (GCC)
$
$ gcctk -O1 -c small.c
$ gcc-7.2.0 -Os -c small.c
$
$ gcctk -Os -c small.c
during GIMPLE pass: widening_mul
small.c: In function ‘f’:
small.c:8:6: internal compiler error: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82815
Bug ID: 82815
Summary: RTL frontend errors out on const_double
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82812
jkoval at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jkoval at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82813
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
It's unreachable code:
[0.23%] [count: INV]:
# DEBUG S117b.276 => &D.9593
.builtin_memcpy (&MEM[(void *)&D.9593], pretmp_305, _250);
The only predecessor is:
[0.32%] [count: INV]:
L113b_224 = s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82813
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82814
Bug ID: 82814
Summary: ICE from submodule character function
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82808
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> ipa_get_jf_pass_through_result has multiple issues:
>
> static tree
> ipa_get_jf_pass_through_result (struct ipa_jump_func *jfunc, tree input)
> {
> tree rest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82808
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
ipa_get_jf_pass_through_result has multiple issues:
static tree
ipa_get_jf_pass_through_result (struct ipa_jump_func *jfunc, tree input)
{
tree restype, res;
if (ipa_get_jf_pass_through_operation (jfun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82813
Bug ID: 82813
Summary: warning: '.builtin_memcpy' writing between 2 and 6
bytes into a region of size 0 overflows the
destination [-Wstringop-overflow=]
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82795
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82808
--- Comment #6 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #5)
> (In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #4)
> > Created attachment 42535 [details]
> > Untested fix
> >
>
> > Hi,
> > The issue here for pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82808
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #4)
> Created attachment 42535 [details]
> Untested fix
>
> Hi,
> The issue here for propagating value of 'm' from f_c1 to foo() is that the
> jump function operatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82641
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #5)
> My patch adds support for
>
>
> ```
> #pragma GCC push_options
> #pragma GCC target("arch=armv8-a+crc")
> __attribute__((target("arch=armv8-a+crc"))) uint
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #35 from Sven ---
(In reply to Sven from comment #34)
> That is to be
> expected, hence gcc should warn about the fact, and the address of a
> (potentially) unaligned int is assigned to a regular int* pointer.
Sorry, typo:
That is to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #34 from Sven ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #32)
> long long is aligned to 4 bytes in struct for i386.
Understood. So the aligned(4) was just added to explicitly restating the
alignment?
Anyhow, the two warnings added by tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82808
--- Comment #4 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 42535
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42535&action=edit
Untested fix
Hi,
The issue here for propagating value of 'm' from f_c1 to foo() is that the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #33 from H.J. Lu ---
[hjl@gnu-skl-1 gcc]$ cat x.c
#include
#include
typedef int aligned_int __attribute__((warn_if_not_aligned(4)));
int main(void)
{
struct foo {
char c;
aligned_int x;
} __attribute__((packe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82795
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Nov 2 13:13:53 2017
New Revision: 254342
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254342&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-11-02 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/82795
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #32 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Sven from comment #31)
> https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/?view=log&pathrev=251180
>
> I am reading the commit message, and the example doesn't make any sense.
> The aligned attribute is for pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #31 from Sven ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/?view=log&pathrev=251180
I am reading the commit message, and the example doesn't make any sense.
The aligned attribute is for providing additional alignment guarantees in
addit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #30 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #29)
>
> I don't remember the exact commit number but HJ Lu added it; I added him on
> cc with my previous comment, so maybe he can explain.
It is r251180.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82809
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Created attachment 42534
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42534&action=edit
Candidate fix
This patch seems to fix it. Only lightly tested so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82809
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82808
--- Comment #3 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #2)
> Works fine with -O2 -fno-inline, but aborts with -flto -O2 -fno-inline.
> Does this possibly indicate an issue with streaming ?
Oops, no. Chan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82808
--- Comment #2 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Works fine with -O2 -fno-inline, but aborts with -flto -O2 -fno-inline.
Does this possibly indicate an issue with streaming ?
Thanks,
Prathamesh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59865
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3)
>
> I can't reproduce this bug due to my target lacking ifunc support. Someone
> with a more capable target will need to test to be able to move this bug out
> of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82812
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |8.0
Target Milestone|8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82805
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82807
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82808
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82809
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |8.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53077
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57970
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56412
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |SUSPENDED
--- Comment #8 from Eric Galla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82795
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Well, not really a "regression", it was broken before the original fix.
The assert is simply bogus.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82812
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82812
Bug ID: 82812
Summary: ICE in emit_move_insn, at expr.c:3706
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82802
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82804
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |7.2.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82801
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82799
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82797
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82811
Bug ID: 82811
Summary: Assembler error on tic6x-none-elf with march=c64x+
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82796
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82795
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82517
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|8.0 |
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82790
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82810
Bug ID: 82810
Summary: missed uninitialized variable warning in for/while
loop
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82805
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82808
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82415
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82809
Bug ID: 82809
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in in ix86_vector_duplicate_value,
at config/i386/i386.c:41242
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82808
Bug ID: 82808
Summary: LTO clone wrong value
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
Assignee: unass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82415
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu Nov 2 09:07:27 2017
New Revision: 254338
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254338&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix scan-assembler patterns in i386/naked-{1,2}.c
2017-11-02 Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82807
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 42533
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42533&action=edit
perf diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82807
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 42532
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42532&action=edit
perf report
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82807
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 42531
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42531&action=edit
perf annotate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82807
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 42529
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42529&action=edit
perf annotate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82807
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 42530
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42530&action=edit
perf report
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82807
Bug ID: 82807
Summary: [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 473.astar ~6%
performance deviation in between 6.3 and 7.2
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82805
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 42528
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42528&action=edit
perf diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82806
Bug ID: 82806
Summary: Stabilize paths in assembler and dumps
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: driver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82805
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 42526
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42526&action=edit
perf report
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82804
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Can't be reproduced on Haswell.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82805
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 42525
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42525&action=edit
perf report
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82805
Bug ID: 82805
Summary: [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 454.calculix ~6%
performance deviation in between 6.3 and 7.2
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82781
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82804
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 42524
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42524&action=edit
perf report
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82804
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 42523
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42523&action=edit
perf annotate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82804
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 42522
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42522&action=edit
perf diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82804
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 42521
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42521&action=edit
perf report
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82804
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 42520
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42520&action=edit
perf annotate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82778
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82776
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82774
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82770
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|lto |testsuite
Target Milestone|---
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
