https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111889
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111884
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111882
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111889
--- Comment #3 from Haochen Jiang ---
My proposal for this problem is to also push "no-evex512" when defining 128/256
intrins. But I am not sure if there will be some potential problems.
Currently working on an experiment on that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111880
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12/13] False |[11/12/13/14] False
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111887
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111889
--- Comment #2 from Haochen Jiang ---
Here is the Godbolt example of that:
https://godbolt.org/z/b3n8h4rb1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111889
--- Comment #1 from Haochen Jiang ---
(In reply to Haochen Jiang from comment #0)
> Created attachment 56155 [details]
> Simple testcase
>
> With this simple testcase and command like this:
>
> x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -O2 -march=x86-64 1.c
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111889
Bug ID: 111889
Summary: [14 Regression] 128/256 intrins could not be used with
only specifying "no-evex512, avx512vl" in function
attribute
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111848
JuzheZhong changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111545
--- Comment #5 from Lehua Ding ---
Hi Edwin,
I fixed by the commit id (29331e72d0ce9fe8aabdeb8c320b99943b9e067a) on trunk,
can you help confirm this fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at suse dot de
--- Comment #25 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111753
--- Comment #4 from Haochen Jiang ---
Proposed patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-October/633677.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111591
--- Comment #24 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #22)
> I see the mems properly get their base adjusted:
>
> (insn 384 383 0 (set (mem/c:V2DI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 112 virtual-stack-vars)
> (const_int 16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50856
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is a full testcase (f3 is caught via fold_cond_expr_with_comparison):
```
int f(int a, int b)
{
int t = a - b;
if (t > 0) return t;
return b - a;
}
int f1(int a, int b)
{
if (a > b) return a - b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111725
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Lehua Ding :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:29331e72d0ce9fe8aabdeb8c320b99943b9e067a
commit r14-4773-g29331e72d0ce9fe8aabdeb8c320b99943b9e067a
Author: Lehua Ding
Date: Fri Oct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111234
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Lehua Ding :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:29331e72d0ce9fe8aabdeb8c320b99943b9e067a
commit r14-4773-g29331e72d0ce9fe8aabdeb8c320b99943b9e067a
Author: Lehua Ding
Date: Fri Oct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111848
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Lehua Ding :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f0e28d8c13713f509fde26fbe7dd13280b67fb87
commit r14-4774-gf0e28d8c13713f509fde26fbe7dd13280b67fb87
Author: Juzhe-Zhong
Date: Wed Oct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111037
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Lehua Ding :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:29331e72d0ce9fe8aabdeb8c320b99943b9e067a
commit r14-4773-g29331e72d0ce9fe8aabdeb8c320b99943b9e067a
Author: Lehua Ding
Date: Fri Oct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111888
Bug ID: 111888
Summary: RISC-V: Horrible redundant number vsetvl instructions
in vectorized codes
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101631
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1d260ab0e39ea63644e3af3ab2e0db946026b5a6
commit r14-4771-g1d260ab0e39ea63644e3af3ab2e0db946026b5a6
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102286
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1d260ab0e39ea63644e3af3ab2e0db946026b5a6
commit r14-4771-g1d260ab0e39ea63644e3af3ab2e0db946026b5a6
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111887
--- Comment #2 from wierton <141242068 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> ---
Thanks for you reply, I got it!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111887
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111887
Bug ID: 111887
Summary: GCC: 14: A potential miscompilation with __builtin_inf
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101195
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||141242068 at smail dot
nju.edu.cn
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111886
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111886
Bug ID: 111886
Summary: GCC: 14: internal compiler error: in tree_to_uhwi, at
tree.cc:6467
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111885
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50856
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The second case will be solved by updating the patch at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/574892.html
For the review at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/574948.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 79021, which changed state.
Bug 79021 Summary: attribute noreturn on function template ignored in generic
lambda
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79021
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79021
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79021
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108238
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is one which is a little more complex for templated function too:
```
template
[[gnu::returns_nonnull]]
auto f() {
return new T(42);
}
auto g(void)
{
return f();
}
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111528
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111876
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
for the record an __fp16 implementation works as expected;
* when the target does not support +fp16, the code-gen promotes to float and
does the multiply with __mulsc3
* when the target supports +fp16, the c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108238
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #3 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111885
Bug ID: 111885
Summary: source code after "required from here" note sometimes
printed strangely
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111884
--- Comment #4 from Tom Honermann ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
> Thanks, I can test
Thank you. That change looks right. My apologies for introducing the
regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111883
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Did you mean like the following? I have no idea if that's correct but is
suppresses the warnings I see.
In C++23 I don't see the code in the .ii file at all, so it doesn't warn.
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111884
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|unsigned char no longer |[13/14 Regression] unsigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111884
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111883
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Why doesn't it fail with -std=c++23 though? Was there some C++26 change I'm
not aware of?
In the to_chars cases, we already use float(__value) casts in the
_Float16/__bfloat16_t cases (but others too), so I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111884
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I'm going to guess this was introduced by the char8_t changes ("C:
Implement C2X N2653 char8_t and UTF-8 string literal changes", commit
703837b2cc8ac03c53ac7cc0fb1327055acaebd2).
/* Un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111884
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111883
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think Jakub wrote that code, but it looks like we just want the explicit
casts. I can add those.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111884
Bug ID: 111884
Summary: unsigned char no longer aliases anything under
-std=c2x
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111645
Carl Love changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carll at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111876
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64 |aarch64 x86_64
Summary|aarch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111876
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > This could either be wrong code for not doing the promotion or just missing
> > the libgcc functions (which could b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111876
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> This could either be wrong code for not doing the promotion or just missing
> the libgcc functions (which could be implemented as doing the promotion).
>
> Either
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111876
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111878
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14 Regression] ICE: in |[14 Regression] ICE: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111878
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-10-19
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111873
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|runtime Segmentation fault |[12/13/14 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111883
Bug ID: 111883
Summary: Wstringop-overflow-6.C FAILs with -std=c++26
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111880
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 05:20:46PM +, zed.three at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111880
>
> --- Comment #2 from zed.three at gmail dot com ---
> The common block is i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110485
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andre Simoes Dias Vieira
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8b704ed0b8f35ec1a57e70bd8e6913ba0e9d1f24
commit r14-4765-g8b704ed0b8f35ec1a57e70bd8e6913ba0e9d1f24
Author: Andre Vieira
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111880
--- Comment #2 from zed.three at gmail dot com ---
The common block is in 'third_party_module', rather than 'foo', unless you mean
that it is visible from 'foo'? It is still a surprising warning in this
location at any rate!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89038
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89038
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Lewis Hyatt
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7a1de35f9cdc13098375baa277496147be271dd3
commit r13-7964-g7a1de35f9cdc13098375baa277496147be271dd3
Author: Lewis Hyatt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100532
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104822
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100532
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2454ba9e2d1ce2d1b9b2b46f6111e022364bf9b5
commit r14-4759-g2454ba9e2d1ce2d1b9b2b46f6111e022364bf9b5
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104822
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9f33e4c50ee92a2053f52e5eb8f205afa54d4cb0
commit r14-4758-g9f33e4c50ee92a2053f52e5eb8f205afa54d4cb0
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111872
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111882
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like this was broken when bitfield expansion was added to ifcvt (I think
r13-3219-g25413fdb2ac24933214123e24ba165026452a6f2 ).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111882
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111882
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99087
Ivan Sorokin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111882
Bug ID: 111882
Summary: GCC: 14: internal compiler error: in
get_expr_operands, at tree-ssa-operands.cc:940
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111860
--- Comment #20 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #19)
> Created attachment 56154 [details]
> C source code
>
> You might like to have a go at getting the attached code working:
>
> $ ~/gcc/results/bin/gcc -c -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110644
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 04:00:10PM +, aluaces at udc dot es wrote:
>
> No, I meant building *gcc* with those flags, but alas each gcc compilation
> stage was still building with "-O2" so almost all of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111880
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111860
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110644
--- Comment #8 from Alberto Luaces ---
No, I meant building *gcc* with those flags, but alas each gcc compilation
stage was still building with "-O2" so almost all of the compiler structures
are still optimized.
Nevertheless I did what you sugg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111466
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111860
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111860
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111877
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111860
--- Comment #16 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 56153
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56153&action=edit
C source code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110644
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 08:00:27AM +, aluaces at udc dot es wrote:
>
> It says something about a non-recursive function likely calling itself. I
> will
> inspect my source, even it is a bit too big. Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100532
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104822
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111881
Bug ID: 111881
Summary: analyzer: ICE in ensure_closed, at
analyzer/constraint-manager.cc:130 with -Ofast
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111880
Bug ID: 111880
Summary: [9/10/11/12/13] False positive warning of obsolescent
COMMON block with Fortran submodule
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111877
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-10-19
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110167
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106878
--- Comment #18 from Alex Coplan ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> Just note this had various follow-ups.
> r13-2658
> r13-2709
> r13-2891
> at least.
So for backports, it sounds like we want r13-2658 without the verify_gimple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111875
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
CCP propagates the alignment here.(In reply to Filip Kastl from comment #1)
> I found out that this is caused by the copy_prop pass. With -Og, an instance
> of copy_prop runs after the fold_builtins pass bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107954
Daniel Lundin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.lundin.mail at gmail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111877
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111878
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111720
--- Comment #26 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111720
>
> --- Comment #25 from JuzheZhong ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82335
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89038
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Lewis Hyatt :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:19cc4b9d74940f29c961e2a5a8b1fa84992d3d30
commit r14-4748-g19cc4b9d74940f29c961e2a5a8b1fa84992d3d30
Author: Lewis Hyatt
Date: Wed Oc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82335
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Lewis Hyatt :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:202a214d6859d91af5a95aa989321c5d2173c40a
commit r14-4747-g202a214d6859d91af5a95aa989321c5d2173c40a
Author: Lewis Hyatt
Date: Mon Oc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111860
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111879
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111860
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:217a0fcb852aeb4aa9e3fb9baec6ff947c8de3d4
commit r14-4746-g217a0fcb852aeb4aa9e3fb9baec6ff947c8de3d4
Author: Tamar Christina
Date
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
