https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94672
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.price at monash dot edu
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96277
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96277
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
On the trunk this has been fixed in PR94672 r11-271 fix, and can't reproduce on
current 10 branch either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96273
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96273
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95237
--- Comment #23 from Sunil Pandey ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #20)
> This bug has prevented the successful compilation of the local
> Linux kernel for just over a month now.
>
> If I can assist with any testing, please let me k
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96255
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #6)
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 07:44:16PM +, jvdelisle at charter dot net wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96255
> >
> > --- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96278
--- Comment #2 from DV Henkel-Wallace ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I think this is a dup of bug 95242.
Could be: I'm not sure if Jason's change applies only to synthesized
comparators or not (that was the case described in 9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96192
Sunil Pandey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||skpgkp2 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96262
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
2268inline wi::storage_ref
2269wi::int_traits ::decompose (HOST_WIDE_INT *,
2270unsigned int precision,
2271const rtx_mode_t &x)
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96278
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||95242
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96262
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96279
Bug ID: 96279
Summary: build failure: floating_from_chars.cc:310:22: error:
'__builtin_isinf_sign' is not a member of 'std'
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96278
Bug ID: 96278
Summary: three-way comparison operator comparison to 0:
spurious nullptr warning
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96277
Bug ID: 96277
Summary: optional argument + openmp fails in gfortran v10.1.0
with "argument not specified in enclosed parallel"
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96276
Bug ID: 96276
Summary: new test case c-c++-common/pr95237-6.c fails
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96275
--- Comment #1 from Witold Baryluk ---
FYI.
clang trunk 12 / 76a0c0ee6ffa9c38485776921948d8f930109674, doesn't do that
either:
fillArray: # @fillArray
testdil, 31
jne .LBB0_8
test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96275
Bug ID: 96275
Summary: Vectorizer doesn't take into account bitmask condition
from branch conditions.
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89310
luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95237
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95237
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0a9d711df36b42b6494b73a90c7ebf050e904493
commit r11-2259-g0a9d711df36b42b6494b73a90c7ebf050e904493
Author: Sunil K Pandey
Date: Fri Ju
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92812
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
This should now work too:
int (&&r)[3] = static_cast(42);
int (&&r2)[1] = static_cast(42);
and in both cases the reference declarations lifetime-extend the array
temporary.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93567
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
patch submitted at https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-July/054770.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93592
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Patch submitted at https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-July/054769.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96271
--- Comment #2 from Gabriel Ravier ---
What do you mean ? -march=intel doesn't exist and I have tried -mtune=intel, I
see no difference in the handling of this regardless of any -march/tune flags
(I've tried : none, -march=nocona, -march=tigerlak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
--- Comment #16 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
I finally managed to reproduce this by doing `./configure
--host=aarch64-none-linux-gnu` on gcc113. The problem is that `CXX_FOR_BUILD`
doesn't seem to be set correctly - normally it's `g++-4.8.1 -std=gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96274
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-7-21
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93567
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Simpler patch with comments
--- ../_clean/libgfortran/io/write_float.def2020-06-13 03:11:55.0
+0200
+++ libgfortran/io/write_float.def 2020-07-21 23:03:08.0 +0200
@@ -987,16 +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 84051, which changed state.
Bug 84051 Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] missing -Warray-bounds on an
out-of-bounds access via an array pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84051
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84051
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |---
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92488
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Peter Bergner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:699f9c0cc1bcc8acfd78c02315c963bf790c874d
commit r11-2258-g699f9c0cc1bcc8acfd78c02315c963bf790c874d
Author: Peter Bergner
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96274
Bug ID: 96274
Summary: [11 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/convert-fp-128.c
breaks on power 9 after r11-2206
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96273
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C++ code:
int b, c, e;
int d[1];
void f() {
int a;
for (;;) {
c = 0;
for (; c <= 1000; b += 10, c++) {
a = 0;
for (; a < 10; a++)
if (b)
e += d[b] = e;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94655
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
--- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor ---
Thanks for the test case. In it, the no-warning bit set on the conditional
expression to avoid the warning is cleared before the expression reaches the
warning code. The culprit seems to be the cp_fold_conv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #32 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Rafael Avila de Espindola from comment #31)
> Hi Iain,
>
> Any update on this? If there is any way I can help, please let me know. It
> has been a decade since I looked into gcc, but I should sti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96273
Bug ID: 96273
Summary: ice in extract_insn, at recog.c:2294, unrecognizable
insn:
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96255
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 07:44:16PM +, jvdelisle at charter dot net wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96255
>
> --- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at charter dot net ---
> (In reply to kargl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 95988, which changed state.
Bug 95988 Summary: [10/11 Regression] Bogus -Warray-bounds/-Wstringop-overflow
warning with loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95988
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95988
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94655
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96197
Joe Burzinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tridacnid at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96255
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at charter dot net ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #2)
> This issue depends on the fix for FORALL. In gfc_match_do in the concurrent
> section, one gets to
>
> m = match_forall_header (&head, &mask);
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96257
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96255
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at charter dot net ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> This is related to PR78219.
>
> If someone takes up the challenge, then this show accept only
> standard conforming type specs. That is, INTEGER*4 should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #31 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
Hi Iain,
Any update on this? If there is any way I can help, please let me know. It has
been a decade since I looked into gcc, but I should still be able to test
patches or implement small side
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89574
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:28f2a080cc27531a8c78aec9f44aeff4961c2a4c
commit r11-2256-g28f2a080cc27531a8c78aec9f44aeff4961c2a4c
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96257
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
--- Comment #11 from Stephan Bergmann ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #10)
> Patch for the static cast:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-July/550231.html
LibreOffice runs into the same issue, but while the above patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93592
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #7)
> Could someone used to git commit the fix and the tests and back port them to
> all the active branches?
I think the normal procedure would be t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95988
Bug ID: 95988
Summary: [10/11 Regression] Bogus
-Warray-bounds/-Wstringop-overflow warning with loop
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: NEW
Keywords: diagnosti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96251
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-21
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96271
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |target
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95750
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:02363d5fdb862a11e6e65ac5b0d1f5ee0c422dc3
commit r11-2255-g02363d5fdb862a11e6e65ac5b0d1f5ee0c422dc3
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Tue J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96272
Bug ID: 96272
Summary: Failure to optimize overflow check
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96257
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
I think gomp.exp adds -fopenmp -Wno-hsa automatically.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96257
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96270
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-21
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96271
Bug ID: 96271
Summary: Failure to optimize memcmp of doubles to avoid going
through memory
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96270
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96269
--- Comment #2 from sshannin at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Your operator== should be const-qualified.
I don't disagree. I can also fully remove the operator== and it compiles as
well (why should the presence
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96197
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96270
Bug ID: 96270
Summary: stdarg malfunction with -m32 and -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96268
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
name<{"hi"}> would work if convert_nontype_argument called digest_init for the
CONSTRUCTOR. This reminds me of another PR where I wanted to add such a
digest_init call, but in the end wound up doing somethin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93305
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/OpenACC/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96247
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93592
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
--- Comment #7 from Dominique
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93592
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 48910
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48910&action=edit
Extensive test with RN and EN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93592
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 48909
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48909&action=edit
Extensive test with RZ and EN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-21
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96268
--- Comment #2 from Will Wray ---
Thanks Marek (and thanks again for implementing it) - it does seem so.
I've asked around a little - tcanens and brevzin point to a core issue
to do with NTTP CTAD but didn't offer an opinion or encourage this bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96268
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96269
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Your operator== should be const-qualified.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96241
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88080
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96258
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94655
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||freddy77 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96259
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96257
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96269
Bug ID: 96269
Summary: optional comparison with nullopt fails
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95952
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95952
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #19 from Will Schmidt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96255
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94599
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-21
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96268
Bug ID: 96268
Summary: class-type NTTP CTAD for string-literal aggregate
fails on aggregate initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
--- Comment #32 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c54d4e218f18c66ce1ad9d7e7762357fd7edacb7
commit r8-10367-gc54d4e218f18c66ce1ad9d7e7762357fd7edacb7
Author: Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96259
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
Summary|Regression warn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96260
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
Summary|RISC-V:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96262
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96263
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96264
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
--- Comment #31 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2020-07-13 7:20 a.m., redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Dave, did you test this for the gcc-8 branch? Do you still want it backported
> to that branch?
Yes please. The patch applies cleanly o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96267
--- Comment #1 from John Dong ---
Created attachment 48908
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48908&action=edit
add missing IN_GCOV_TOOL macro
hmmm refer to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95332
Fix missing IN_GCOV
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96259
--- Comment #1 from Frediano Ziglio ---
The commit introducing this regression is:
commit 6889a3acfeed47265886676c6d43b04ef799fb82
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Thu Sep 19 22:15:34 2019 +
PR middle-end/91631 - buffer overflow into an ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96267
Bug ID: 96267
Summary: gcov-tool merge more coverage data error.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: gcov-pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96266
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88080
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-21
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93567
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> It gets complicated quickly with all the corner cases.
I tried to simplify, but I did find anything simpler and working.
> Last line of the added logic needs a space before the 0
Yes.
I have lea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96266
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
