https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56547
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
It's fold_plusminus_mult_expr doing this on GENERIC already. I suppose FMA
detection might want to consider undoing this. It's also questionable whether
transforming a * b + a this way is profitable but I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102225
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.0|9.5
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102223
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102216
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think I have a patch which disables the proping in forwprop that creates the
&MEM stuff (it is done still by forwprop just not in this location and via
match instead). The waring is now gone and the code l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102226
Bug ID: 102226
Summary: ICE with -O3 -msve-vector-bits=128
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102225
Bug ID: 102225
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in get_or_create_int_cst, at
analyzer/region-model-manager.cc:227
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Ke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224
--- Comment #7 from Gabriel Ravier ---
Also, `-ffast-math` seems to "fix" this, since in that case the code is
recognized as an ABS_EXPR pattern and as such results in the same code being
emitted without the xor. Is there any reason this isn't t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224
Gabriel Ravier changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 regession] wrong code |[9/10/11/12 regession]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224
--- Comment #5 from Gabriel Ravier ---
Actually it seems to me like this is a GCC 9 regression, ever since this
pattern exists: GCC 9, 10 and 11 emit the exact same faulty code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
There was just a recent patch which touched this in the x86 backend.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Component|tree-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224
--- Comment #3 from Gabriel Ravier ---
Also seems like this might be unique to x86 as this compiles fine on Aarch64
(though while it doesn't try to do anything stupid like xoring the result with
itself, it does still not optimize the XOR_SIGN to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224
--- Comment #2 from Gabriel Ravier ---
(PS: by "x and y" I mean "the two arguments". If they're the same, GCC should
obviously just optimize this to an abs as that's what it ends up being)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224
--- Comment #1 from Gabriel Ravier ---
(Note: this is a miscompile because it compiles as equivalent to `return 0;` as
that's what `xorps xmm0, xmm0` will do)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224
Bug ID: 102224
Summary: Incorrect compile on `x * copysign(1.0, x)`
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102178
--- Comment #2 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Verified 470.lbm doesn't show regression on Power8 with Ofast.
runtime is 141 sec for r12-897, without that patch it is 142 sec.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102008
--- Comment #3 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
phiopt4 and sink2 are doing reverse optimizations:
pr102008.c.200t.phiopt4:
Hoisting adjacent loads from 3 and 4 into 2: _6 = foo_4(D)->a; _5 =
foo_4(D)->b;
pr102008.c.202t.sink2:
Sinki
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102008
--- Comment #2 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Confirmed if move the sink2 pass before phiopt4 could restore the previous
instructons for this case:
test:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
cmp w0, 1
ldp w0, w1, [x1]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102216
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||TREE
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102216
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|False positive |[12 Regression] missed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97142
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xiong Hu Luo :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:546ecb0054af302acf0839c7f3eb78598f8c0672
commit r12-3375-g546ecb0054af302acf0839c7f3eb78598f8c0672
Author: Xionghu Luo
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101902
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102115
jcmvbkbc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jcmvbkbc at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102134
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:74cb45e67d14624c3e2fafa99a8920d1866a5f0c
commit r12-3372-g74cb45e67d14624c3e2fafa99a8920d1866a5f0c
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Mon
ble-libada
--disable-systemtap --disable-valgrind-annotations --disable-vtable-verify
--disable-libvtv --without-zstd --enable-lto --without-isl
--disable-libsanitizer --disable-default-pie --enable-default-ssp
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20210906 (ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102216
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> The problem is dead code:
> language_names_p_9 = &MEM [(void *)_4 + 24B];
> MEM[(const char * *)_4 + 24B] = "";
> MEM[(const char * *)_4 + 32B] = "";
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102223
--- Comment #1 from Federico Kircheis ---
Sorry, I copied the wrong snippet, it should have been
#include
struct s{
s() noexcept;
~s();
int value() const noexcept;
};
s foo() noexcept;
int bar(){
const auto& v = std::move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102223
Bug ID: 102223
Summary: no warning whel calling member function on dangling
reference
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102111
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #0)
> The issue was originally observed on a native s390 machine
> (s390-ibm-linux-gnu) but I ended up minimising the ICE using cvise via
> cross. I hit the issue when buildin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96645
Eyal Rozenberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eyalroz1 at gmx dot com
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102199
--- Comment #6 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> See PR 96645 and PR 101227
Ok.
But does that explain why defining an explicit constructor cause g++ to accept
the class as default-constructible?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102199
--- Comment #5 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> See PR 96645 and PR 101227
Ok, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 51418
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51418&action=edit
build.log from compiling squashfs-tools-4.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
Bug ID: 10
Summary: ICE on s390 (internal compiler error: in extract_insn,
at recog.c:2770)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92065
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46991
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99819
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46691
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c8cd1acae4c26929400fae0d7fb17cfef8c15be0
commit r9-9712-gc8cd1acae4c26929400fae0d7fb17cfef8c15be0
Author: Paul Thomas
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99819
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c8cd1acae4c26929400fae0d7fb17cfef8c15be0
commit r9-9712-gc8cd1acae4c26929400fae0d7fb17cfef8c15be0
Author: Paul Thomas
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99125
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20585
Bug 20585 depends on bug 93925, which changed state.
Bug 93925 Summary: Invalid memory reference upon call of a routine taking a
procedure pointer as argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93925
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93925
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93924
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99125
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3e59c3c6f4c4f42a158d8ab936c995754bf22dee
commit r9-9711-g3e59c3c6f4c4f42a158d8ab936c995754bf22dee
Author: Paul Thomas
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93925
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:49cefbec30499da06f90912090bcc5eabdfefa32
commit r9-9710-g49cefbec30499da06f90912090bcc5eabdfefa32
Author: Paul Thomas
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93924
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:49cefbec30499da06f90912090bcc5eabdfefa32
commit r9-9710-g49cefbec30499da06f90912090bcc5eabdfefa32
Author: Paul Thomas
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96563
--- Comment #3 from Gabriel Ravier ---
It seems like GCC does better for the unrolled case as of now on trunk and
seemingly since GCC 11, though the operation is done in a different way due to
`((unsigned)x <= 9) ? 8 : 4;` being expanded differen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102201
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93794
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98350
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70912
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93794
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5bfb794ae1bef72e251b5aa7274e79b3034bb1bc
commit r9-9709-g5bfb794ae1bef72e251b5aa7274e79b3034bb1bc
Author: Paul Thomas
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56547
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
>Not sure yet whether this is actually target specific.
It is not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56547
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mkretz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102219
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually it is a dup of bug 56547.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 56547 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56547
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chtz at informatik dot
uni-bremen.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98429
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91687
Bug 91687 depends on bug 86999, which changed state.
Bug 86999 Summary: missed FMA optimization with -fassociative-math
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86999
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56547
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asd0025 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86999
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98429
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mkretz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102219
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102221
Bug ID: 102221
Summary: Missed optimizations for algorithms over
std::unique_ptr
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102220
Bug ID: 102220
Summary: Conversion from cv void* to object-type* not rejected
during constant evaluation
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyword
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102206
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92505
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102219
Bug ID: 102219
Summary: fast-math inhibits fp contraction for a + b * a
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102201
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102199
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
See PR 96645 and PR 101227
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100470
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |c++
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #14)
> This is http://cplusplus.github.com/LWG/lwg-active.html#2116 so let's
> suspend this.
Updated link: https://wg21.link/lwg2116
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101555
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] Compile |Compile slowdown in tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102218
Bug ID: 102218
Summary: 128-bit atomic compare and exchange does not honor
memory model on AArch64 and Arm
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87980
--- Comment #8 from Jürgen Reuter ---
The actual workaround that I'm using (the code is from of our stale branches
which recently became active again) is:
[...]
subroutine qn_string_set (qns, col)
class(qn_string_t), intent(inout) :: qns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101551
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Schwinge ---
I've noticed that with an offloading-enabled build of GCC we're losing "note:
in expansion of macro '[...]'" diagnostics. (Effectively
'-ftrack-macro-expansion=0'?)
For example, 'libgomp.oacc-c-c++-commo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89984
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87980
--- Comment #7 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Is anybody ever looked into this? Any updates?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89984
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:652bef70d392f9541b12ef65b461009c8c8fd54a
commit r12-3369-g652bef70d392f9541b12ef65b461009c8c8fd54a
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Sat Sep 4 08:2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102215
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Actually, looking at GCN, it is inline e.g. for both:
int
foo (int *p)
{
return __sync_val_compare_and_swap_4 (p, 1, 2);
}
int
bar (int *p)
{
int e = 1;
__atomic_compare_exchange_4 (p, &e, 2, 0, __AT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus ---
I think my patch for moving the CFI<->GFC conversion to FE-generated code
partially helps,
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/578904.html
However, I still see the following issues:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100495
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77899
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-06
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
--- Comment #20 from Andrew Pinski ---
So on the trunk we get:
c_len.0_1 = c_len;
_2 = (long unsigned int) c_len.0_1;
_6 = &c + _2;
MEM [(struct pstream_t *)&ps] = &c;
MEM [(struct pstream_t *)&ps + 8B] = _6;
_17 = (signed long) c_l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102215
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101140
--- Comment #1 from ensadc at mailnesia dot com ---
https://godbolt.org/z/EaPf3anxx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101449
--- Comment #1 from ensadc at mailnesia dot com ---
https://godbolt.org/z/fMr9acG15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102217
Bug ID: 102217
Summary: co_awaiting a temporary produced by ternary operator
crashes (double-free)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96188
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #6)
> The example in comment #4 is due to the same problem/limitation in the
> optimizer. The IL that triggers the warning is below:
I am going to fix this issue as pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102182
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102182
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:93e6809459f34ca7b5928f1729246b2e9dfb3eb4
commit r12-3368-g93e6809459f34ca7b5928f1729246b2e9dfb3eb4
Author: liuhongt
Date: Mon Sep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102216
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100495
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, for constructors this is likely a non-issue, because in_chrg etc. only
appears on constructors of classes with virtual bases and such constructors are
not constexpr.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101394
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.3.0
Summary|[9/10 Regres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101291
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.3.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101009
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.3.1
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101394
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:424737442fb7cd6ea8f0e63098c26cebdaf82a51
commit r10-10099-g424737442fb7cd6ea8f0e63098c26cebdaf82a51
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101291
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1a4075c0a43fff9fac9df91c3e83e3a1949b69ff
commit r10-10098-g1a4075c0a43fff9fac9df91c3e83e3a1949b69ff
Author: Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101173
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ac6efdd70779a3be748d11c3b03c08df9ce15dd7
commit r10-10097-gac6efdd70779a3be748d11c3b03c08df9ce15dd7
Author: Richard Bien
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
