https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95310
--- Comment #3 from ensadc at mailnesia dot com ---
When verifying the fix, I noticed a new bug:
template requires true
using iter_reference_t = decltype(*T{});
template
struct result {
using type = iter_reference_t;
};
template
conce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97452
David Ledger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davidledger at live dot com.au
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97465
--- Comment #3 from fdlbxtqi ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> e.g. what kind of cross build? We're not psychic.
I try to build x86_64-linux-gnu to x86_64-linux-gnu lol since I do not want vtv
to ruin my ABIs.
However, after I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82343
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 11.0.0 20201016 (experimental) [master revision
3e8d8f3b883:93f23a96b87:02629b116eed7c6911ef0eb2ef97e1883e9fb1de] (GCC)
[504] %
[504] % gcctk -O2 small.c
[505] %
[505] % gcctk -O3 small.c
during GIMPLE pass: vect
small.c: In function ‘main’:
small.c:59:5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97039
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97465
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
e.g. what kind of cross build? We're not psychic.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97465
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355
--- Comment #15 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> In any case, the change to use -gdwarf-* by default even when not compiling
> just assembly was based on the assumption that gas would in that case pretty
> muc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97465
Bug ID: 97465
Summary: cross build gcc with vtv enabled failed. Cannot find
out headers in glibc why?
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95979
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:02629b116eed7c6911ef0eb2ef97e1883e9fb1de
commit r11-4020-g02629b116eed7c6911ef0eb2ef97e1883e9fb1de
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94761
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Commit e69bf64be925 added the host and target flags originally, and it
seems to have been just a mistake that is used --build=${build_alias}
--host=${build_alias}. (Now of course that has spread to many
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96927
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97462
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4a135bd987e7bff6d3b94efa085e0c246348b486
commit r11-4016-g4a135bd987e7bff6d3b94efa085e0c246348b486
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97456
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|ipa |tree-optimization
--- Comment #7 from Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97456
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
I have posted the patch to the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-October/556399.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97451
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In rep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97464
Bug ID: 97464
Summary: Missed redundant store optimization opportunity
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97460
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97460
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ccb4f20cbee1756c464033bbdda2f27b6aa2a63f
commit r11-4015-gccb4f20cbee1756c464033bbdda2f27b6aa2a63f
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94761
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360
--- Comment #21 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #20)
> >
> >Is this your preferred solution?
>
> The backen should use more lowlevel functions to build this type rather than
> copying from a type that isn't a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On October 16, 2020 5:46:28 PM GMT+02:00, amacleod at redhat dot com
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360
>
>--- Comment #19 from Andrew Macleod ---
>(In reply to rguent...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97463
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97462
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96171
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.0, 9.3.0
Known to fail|11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97460
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97451
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96258
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96258
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a16da48bf19bb139e5461e5b5b7f072d5369b054
commit r11-4014-ga16da48bf19bb139e5461e5b5b7f072d5369b054
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97463
Bug ID: 97463
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in warn_parm_ptrarray_mismatch on
an incompatible function redeclaration
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97463
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Eve
20201016 (experimental) [master revision
37753588116:be453072dd2:6c6e0cafa38cee8309f37b846cb7db813a472a54] (GCC)
[555] %
[555] % gcctk -O1 -c -w small.c
[556] % gcctk -Os -c -w small.c
during GIMPLE pass: evrp
small.c: In function ‘d’:
small.c:7:1: internal compiler error: in op1_range, at range-op.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83417
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97459
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or:
unsigned r3_128u_v4 (__uint128_t n)
{
unsigned long a;
a = (n >> 96);
a += (n >> 64) & 0xULL;
a += (n >> 32) & 0xULL;
a += (n & 0xULL);
return a % 3;
}
if the target do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97456
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
And indeed the following avoids the issue:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-complex.c b/gcc/tree-complex.c
index 2e54bbb917c..71ad7c18523 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-complex.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-complex.c
@@ -570,8 +570,10 @@ se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97459
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
E.g.
unsigned r3_128u_v3 (__uint128_t n)
{
unsigned long a;
a = (n >> 88);
a += (n >> 44) & 0xfffULL;
a += (n & 0xfffULL);
return a % 3;
}
could work, but haven't measured how fast i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #18)
> On October 16, 2020 4:17:43 PM GMT+02:00, amacleod at redhat dot com
>
> >
> >Yeah, I haven't tripped over it in ADA. This was a 512 byte quad on the
> >p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97460
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97457
--- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan ---
For the similar testcase:
long a;
short b;
signed char c(char d, char e) { return d + e; }
int main(void) {
a = -30;
for (; a < 24; a = c(a, 5)) {
short *f = &b;
(*f)--;
}
if (b != -11)
__b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97459
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97419
--- Comment #7 from Steve Fink ---
I can workaround the bug by avoiding declval:
- using Iter = decltype(std::declval().begin());
- using Elem = decltype(*std::declval());
+ using Iter = decltype(static_cast(nullptr)->begin());
+ using E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97461
--- Comment #3 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Probably started from
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;h=871e5ada6d53d5eb ("Make TOPN
counter dynamically allocated.") when dynamic memory allocation call was added
to gcov_topn_add_value(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97461
--- Comment #2 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Original firefox lockup is slightly more complicated: malloc() call happens in
a constructor of external library (at _gpg_err_init()).
(gdb) bt
#0 __lll_lock_wait (futex=0x5591defd9720 , private=0) at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97461
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Created attachment 49388
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49388&action=edit
a.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97461
Bug ID: 97461
Summary: allocate_gcov_kvp() deadlocks in firefox LTO+PGO build
(overridden malloc() recursion)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On October 16, 2020 4:17:43 PM GMT+02:00, amacleod at redhat dot com
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360
>
>--- Comment #17 from Andrew Macleod ---
>(In reply to rguent...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97456
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Looking at Martin's reduced testcase
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Confirmed with -fwhole-program -O3 IPA SRA messes things up here cloning
> wrong
> and producing the strange
>
> wron
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97129
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96258
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96258
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97129
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #16)
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2020, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360
> >
> > --- Comment #15 from Andrew Macle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97460
Bug ID: 97460
Summary: [11 Regression] A boost ICE since
r11-3883-g068644a14976ce67
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97460
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97453
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360
>
> --- Comment #15 from Andrew Macleod ---
> Well it seems far more incorrect that t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Macleod ---
Well it seems far more incorrect that types_compatible_p () is FALSE for a type
and its MIN/MAX value?
Whats the point of MIN/MAX if you cant count on them being the right types, or
at least conmpatible.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97327
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by SRINATH PARVATHANENI
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:90042c43a92c452a5f9f3afbfcdad511ea09a54f
commit r11-4006-g90042c43a92c452a5f9f3afbfcdad511ea09a54f
Author: Srinath Parvathane
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
But that's just a waste of memory ... the expectation that the min/max values
are of the same type is simply wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97414
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://reviews.llvm.org/D8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Macleod ---
Created attachment 49386
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49386&action=edit
Patch to create integral MAX and MiN
Joy. I'll try it and see what happens.
And back to the first problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97459
Bug ID: 97459
Summary: __uint128_t remainder for division by 3
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97428
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Michael_S from comment #9)
> Hopefully, you did regression tests for all main AoS<->SoA cases.
We only test what we have in the testsuite ;)
> I.e.
>
> typedef struct { double re, im; } dcml
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96914
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by SRINATH PARVATHANENI
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7591fc054f40c96fabe05d74d61d1c144798354b
commit r10-8907-g7591fc054f40c96fabe05d74d61d1c144798354b
Author: Christop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96914
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by SRINATH PARVATHANENI
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c4fb78e5d79b02ae720b2db42fa00e2c8d2d7ed5
commit r10-8906-gc4fb78e5d79b02ae720b2db42fa00e2c8d2d7ed5
Author: Christop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96914
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by SRINATH PARVATHANENI
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f5d0b57da1a0529a44da772f4f0b227cd5c50fd5
commit r10-8905-gf5d0b57da1a0529a44da772f4f0b227cd5c50fd5
Author: Christop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97458
Bug ID: 97458
Summary: C++ parsing fails when calling specialized template
method inside lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96425
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97372
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97237
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96759
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96379
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97426
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97451
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97411
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95953
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97428
--- Comment #9 from Michael_S ---
Hopefully, you did regression tests for all main AoS<->SoA cases.
I.e.
typedef struct { double re, im; } dcmlx_t;
void soa2aos(double* restrict dstRe, double* restrict dstIm, const dcmlx_t
src[], int nq)
{
for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97301
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|ipa |testsuite
--- Comment #1 from Richard B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97264
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97056
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.0|---
Summary|[11 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97104
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96983
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96927
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96901
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97456
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
A bit reduced test-case:
$ #include
auto wrong(float &pos) -> int {
auto a = std::complex(pos, pos);
auto b = std::complex(0.0f, 0.0f);
b = b + a;
if (b == 0.0f)
return 1;
printf("%f\n", b.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96376
--- Comment #3 from Christophe Lyon ---
I mentioned the configuration flags above:
--target armeb-none-linux-gnueabihf --with-mode arm --with-cpu cortex-a9
--with-fpu neon-fp16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96840
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95234
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 95234, which changed state.
Bug 95234 Summary: [11 Regression] 416.gamess Miscompare of exam29.out since
r11-455-g94f687bd9ae37ece
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95234
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96800
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95757
--- Comment #4 from Christophe Lyon ---
Yes I still see
FAIL: gcc.dg/Wstringop-overflow-25.c pr92814 (test for warnings, line 378)
for
arm-none-linux-gnueabihf --with-cpu=cortex-a5
arm-none-eabi -mcpu=cortex-m[034]
but for instance arm-none-linu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96680
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96376
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96375
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97457
--- Comment #1 from Alex Coplan ---
To be clear, the second beq .L8 is in the body of the main loop is not taken
either in the execution described here. The lack of a comment there might have
suggested otherwise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96162
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96147
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-10-16
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96129
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org,
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
