https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99061
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99060
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99057
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99063
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98825
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:19c023241020e3b6f5c38f47447bc0fcbe9fef5f
commit r11-7183-g19c023241020e3b6f5c38f47447bc0fcbe9fef5f
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98969
--- Comment #9 from David Malcolm ---
*** Bug 99064 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99064
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99068
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99067
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21236
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92773
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99068
Bug ID: 99068
Summary: Missed PowerPC lhau optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99067
Bug ID: 99067
Summary: Missed optimization for induction variable elimination
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19449
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2005-12-18 01:38:34 |2021-2-10
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21433
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2012-01-19 00:00:00 |2021-2-10
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
--- Comment #23 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
with the latest gcc11, our application can be compiled without any issue now.
thanks a lot for fixing this bug.
will this patch be added to gcc10?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90036
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.0|12.0
Known to fail|9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99059
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Looks like a bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99059
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-10
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99058
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> +GCC 5.1 was the first release with non-experimental C++11 support,
> +so the API and ABI of C++11 components is only stable from that release on.
Maybe this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22241
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.0
Last reconfirmed|2012-01-1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99058
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think the following doc patch would probably help.
--- a/libstdc++-v3/doc/xml/manual/status_cxx2011.xml
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/doc/xml/manual/status_cxx2011.xml
@@ -24,6 +24,8 @@ features. See dialect
opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99058
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> C++17 support isn't stable until GCC 9 so there is no guarantee of
> compatibility between 7 and 8 or 8 and 9. That applies to the entire library
> (and langu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99058
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Brad Spencer from comment #3)
> Ok. What's the right way for me to learn what version of GCC has stable
> support for a C++ version?
The release notes:
https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-9/changes.html#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92879
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:21c6ad7a12fecc4c85ac26289d9096379b550585
commit r11-7180-g21c6ad7a12fecc4c85ac26289d9096379b550585
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 92879, which changed state.
Bug 92879 Summary: [10/11 Regression] incorrect warning of __builtin_memset
offset is out of the bounds on zero-size allocation and initialization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92879
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99041
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #6)
> The mma_assemble_pair/mma_assemble_acc patterns both generate lxv or lxvp
> at, which both use a DQ offset and we already have function to
> test for that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86010
--- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor ---
Should this be resolved as fixed per comment #10?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78568
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2016-11-29 00:00:00 |2021-2-10
Known to fail|7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99040
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99062
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> There already is a test in the attribute handler to validate the alignment:
> it calls integer_pow2p (val). Val here is:
>
> constant -2147483648>
> but intege
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99041
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from Peter Bergn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99062
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
There already is a test in the attribute handler to validate the alignment: it
calls integer_pow2p (val). Val here is:
constant
-2147483648>
but integer_pow2p (val) returns true. I'd expect the function t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93109
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98021
--- Comment #17 from David Malcolm ---
One aspect of the original case in comment #0 that hasn't been mentioned in
this discussion is that the two #warning messages are related to each other.
It looks to me like the author of those lines intende
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95140
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] bogus|[10/11 Regression] bogus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
--- Comment #22 from David Malcolm ---
*** Bug 96940 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96940
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99058
--- Comment #3 from Brad Spencer ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> C++17 support isn't stable until GCC 9 so there is no guarantee of
> compatibility between 7 and 8 or 8 and 9. That applies to the entire library
> (and language
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] ICE in |[10 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1f5c80883efce5242d892eb771ebb60830d20e0f
commit r11-7179-g1f5c80883efce5242d892eb771ebb60830d20e0f
Author: David Malcolm
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99061
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||foreese at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99060
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99062
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99025
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99035
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11 Regression] ICE in |[9/10 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99066
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-10
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99035
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0f39fb7b001df7cdba56cd5c572d0737667acd2c
commit r11-7178-g0f39fb7b001df7cdba56cd5c572d0737667acd2c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99025
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:20482cfcc1d3b71e0aec57b5b48685bf0b5402ca
commit r11-7177-g20482cfcc1d3b71e0aec57b5b48685bf0b5402ca
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99058
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Brad Spencer from comment #0)
> Perhaps I was misusing this table, but I interpreted "supported since 7.1"
> to mean that if I compile against 7.1 headers, my code will remain ABI
> compatible
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99058
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
C++17 support isn't stable until GCC 9 so there is no guarantee of
compatibility between 7 and 8 or 8 and 9. That applies to the entire library
(and language features) not just std::optional.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99031
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98988
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99062
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Must be this part:
@@ -2935,8 +2936,8 @@ handle_assume_aligned_attribute (tree *node, tree name,
tree args, int,
/* The misalignment specified by the second argument
must be non-negati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99066
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Summary|non-weak definitio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99062
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99066
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99061
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 06:03:56PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c
> index 5c9258c65c3..0cf0aa56811 100644
> --- a/gcc/fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99031
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a8db7887dfbf502b7e60d64bfeebd0de592d2d45
commit r11-7176-ga8db7887dfbf502b7e60d64bfeebd0de592d2d45
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98988
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a8db7887dfbf502b7e60d64bfeebd0de592d2d45
commit r11-7176-ga8db7887dfbf502b7e60d64bfeebd0de592d2d45
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99066
Bug ID: 99066
Summary: non-weak definition emitted for explicit instantiation
declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: link-failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99064
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99060
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-10
Ever confirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99065
Bug ID: 99065
Summary: ASSOCIATE function selector expression "no IMPLICIT
type" failure
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99061
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
Las
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99063
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99063
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
(experimental) [master revision
bdcde150450:e18dcf9fcae:b407f233d7c18534fbfe8f74af7f0232498fb0c4] (GCC)
r11-6550 FAIL
gcc version 11.0.0 20210210 (experimental) [master revision
bd0e37f68a3:deed5164277:72932511053596091ad291539022b51d9f2ba418] (GCC)
r11-7168 FAIL
$ cat x.ii
template struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87758
npl at chello dot at changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||npl at chello dot at
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99055
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99063
Bug ID: 99063
Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in prep_operand, at
cp/call.c:5842
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99062
Bug ID: 99062
Summary: [10/11 Regression] ICE in tree_to_uhwi, at tree.h:4579
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99061
Bug ID: 99061
Summary: [10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_intrinsic_atan2d,
at fortran/trans-intrinsic.c:4728
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98986
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #4)
> So this is where the "autogenerated" part comes in. We should have
> an idea what might be useful and what isn't even worth trying by
> looking at the m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99060
Bug ID: 99060
Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_match_varspec, at
fortran/primary.c:2411
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
--- Comment #19 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #18)
> Converting one of both of those "const" and "void" to non-macros ought to
"one or both", I meant to say
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3df5b249b3c81e95cdcb293a388155ae5b168f9e
commit r11-7174-g3df5b249b3c81e95cdcb293a388155ae5b168f9e
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-10
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98986
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #3)
> FWIW, another similar thing I've wanted in the past is to try
> recognising multiple possible constants in an (and X (const_int N))
> when X is known
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
--- Comment #93 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think I'd go for more chains by default, at least 64 or even 256, with a
param and tracking on how many we have in a counter. The class has a
ctor/dtor, so the increment/decrement of the counter can be do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98692
--- Comment #24 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I do see the problems for savegpr/restgpr with that suggestion, but maybe
something
in that vein can be done.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98692
--- Comment #23 from Segher Boessenkool ---
savegpr/restgpr are special ABI-defined functions that do not have all the same
ABI
calling conventions as normal functions. They indeed write into the parent's
frame
(red zone, in this case).
Maybe y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
--- Comment #92 from Richard Biener ---
Simple and stupid like the below works and does
store merging : 0.42 ( 1%) 0.00 ( 0%) 0.43 ( 1%)
3858k ( 1%)
TOTAL : 56.86 0.56
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
--- Comment #17 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #15)
> where:
>
> (gdb) call inform (loc_a, "loc_a")
> In file included from
> /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/minwindef.h:163,
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
--- Comment #91 from Richard Biener ---
So the other simple idea I have is to limit the number of active store groups
and force-terminate in either a LRU or FIFO manner.
For the testcase at hand the decls we start the chain for are all only
used
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
--- Comment #90 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Because it says that the whole range is uninitialized, so the store merging
code doesn't need to care about pre-existing content in any gaps between the
stored values. So say when the whole var is clobbered
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
--- Comment #89 from Richard Biener ---
Fallout includes
FAIL: g++.dg/opt/store-merging-1.C scan-tree-dump store-merging "New sequence
of [12] stores to replace old one of 2 stores"
which shows
Starting new chain with statement:
s ={v} {CLOBB
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99055
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Eve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021, dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
>
> --- Comment #15 from David Malcolm ---
> #0 fancy_abort (file=0x95b0ab6 "../../
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
--- Comment #88 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
>
> --- Comment #87 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> At least for PR92038 it is important to se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
--- Comment #87 from Jakub Jelinek ---
At least for PR92038 it is important to see CLOBBERs in the chain, including
the first position in there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
--- Comment #86 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so clobber handling was added as a fix for PR92038
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
--- Comment #85 from Richard Biener ---
Starting new chain with statement:
D.31414 ={v} {CLOBBER};
The base object is:
&D.31414
Starting new chain with statement:
D.31415 ={v} {CLOBBER};
The base object is:
&D.31415
...
but those are all the las
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
--- Comment #15 from David Malcolm ---
#0 fancy_abort (file=0x95b0ab6 "../../libcpp/line-map.c", line=1359,
function=0x95b0ace "linemap_compare_locations")
at ../../gcc/diagnostic.c:1778
#1 0x08fcbecf in linemap_compare_locations (set=0xf7f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
--- Comment #84 from Richard Biener ---
So it's the usual (quadratic) culprit:
Samples: 1M of event 'cycles:u', Event count (approx.): 1675893461671
Overhead Samples Command Shared Object Symbol
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99016
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95675
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david at doublewise dot net
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98692
--- Comment #22 from jseward at acm dot org ---
Looking back at the above, it's now clearer what the problem is:
# Park potentially live data in the red zone
_savegpr0_14: std r14,-144(r1)
_savegpr0_15: std r15,-136(r1)
_savegpr0_16:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
1 - 100 of 168 matches
Mail list logo
