https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116126
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116131
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116126
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116122
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.2
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116109
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-07-30
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116133
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
I should note that LLVM converts it always to __builtin_mult_overflow as far as
I can tell. Even on targets like avr.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116133
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually I am trying to understand the original reason for the extra checks
that was added in r14-992 when dealing with highpart:
The reason for testing the presence of the optab
handler is to make s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116137
Bug ID: 116137
Summary: missing VRP with absu and known not to include INF
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116043
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bc1fda00d5f20e2f3e77a50b2822562b6e0040b2
commit r15-2395-gbc1fda00d5f20e2f3e77a50b2822562b6e0040b2
Author: liuhongt
Date: Wed Jul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116133
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116103
--- Comment #10 from Li Pan ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #9)
> (In reply to Li Pan from comment #7)
> > confirm with you all related failures are covered.
>
> Yes, the testing state is restored to what it was before, thanks!
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116136
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|m68k|
Summary|[15 Regression] ext
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116136
Bug ID: 116136
Summary: [15 Regression] ext-dce exposes latent subreg
simplification bug on m68k
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105361
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #9)
> In some of my test runs (have not yet been able to deduce any pattern), I'm
> seeing this new test case FAIL its execution test:
>
Can you try this minor ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106783
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Patrick O'Neill from comment #9)
> I think this is another example using -Os and -fdump-tree-modref:
> double a;
> double b(double c) { return 0 - 0.5 * c ?: a; }
>
> Godbolt: https://godbolt.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106783
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||patrick at rivosinc dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116133
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114729
--- Comment #13 from Vineet Gupta ---
So after many months on and off on the issue, I think I understand what's going
on.
There are 3 insns involved in the issue which sched1 current generates in
following order:
insn 46(1) srliw a0,a5,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116135
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Similarly for:
```
int f1(unsigned _BitInt(9) x, unsigned _BitInt(9) y, unsigned _BitInt(9) * res)
{
return __builtin_mul_overflow(x, y, res);
}
int f2(unsigned _BitInt(9) x, unsigned _BitInt(9) y, unsig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116135
Bug ID: 116135
Summary: __builtin_mul_overflow inefficient for _BitInt(31)
(with widening multiply)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116104
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116131
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116104
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Fixed on the trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116104
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5ab9a351247a551c47b0ab9d8e8b907223e7faf6
commit r15-2390-g5ab9a351247a551c47b0ab9d8e8b907223e7faf6
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Mon Jul 29
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106852
Ilia Chachanidze changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ilia.chachanidze24 at gmail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113484
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Ah, this was about *actual* half-precision float, which indeed is 3.0 (Power9).
But all the same holds: it needs to be added to the ABI before we can have a
type for it, and it still won't be terribly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113484
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111613
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sam James :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5e5d7a88932b132437069f716160f8b20862890b
commit r15-2388-g5e5d7a88932b132437069f716160f8b20862890b
Author: Sam James
Date: Mon Jul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116134
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Testing a fix, should be submitted later today.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116120
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Testing a fix, should be submitted later today.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88313
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=88313
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:72a7ab891ae0061841c4eb641ef6ab7719bf0369
commit r15-2387-g72a7ab891ae0061841c4eb641ef6ab7719bf0369
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113484
--- Comment #2 from John Platts ---
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #1)
> It would of course be necessary to define the ABI used for _Float16 (and
> _Complex _Float16) argument passing and return (in each PowerPC ABI for
> which we sup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492
--- Comment #23 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Current compiler produces (-O3):
f:
movl$4194368, %edx
movl$head, %eax
movd%edx, %xmm1
pshufd $0, %xmm1, %xmm1
.L2:
movdqa (%rax), %xmm0
addq$
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116103
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pan2.li at intel dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116130
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems we actually implement it that way already, or at least sometimes.
build_conditional_expr has
/* Quickly detect the usual case where op1 and op2 have the same type
after promotion. */
if (TYPE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116130
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #5)
I brought it up at
https://social.treehouse.systems/@thesamesam/110148110341108345 too where
[[unsequenced]] and [[reproducible]] were mentioned.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116130
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> BTW, the rule about composite types sounds fairly dangerous in the ?:
> operator case.
> For redeclarations it is the right thing, but for ?: yielding the union of
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116080
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58761|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116130
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
BTW, the rule about composite types sounds fairly dangerous in the ?: operator
case.
For redeclarations it is the right thing, but for ?: yielding the union of the
standard attributes will cause problems say
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105361
Edwin Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ewlu at rivosinc dot com
--- Comment #10 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116134
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Caused by r15-2106-g44fcc1ca11e7ea .
Generic is a pain when it comes to types of comparisons, they are not always
bool (or vector bool for vector comparisons).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116080
--- Comment #8 from Andi Kleen ---
Patch was reverted, it just made a bunch of tests unsupported.
problems:
- Need unique name for each new test to not confuse the caching
- -O0 tests need to use musttail explictly because the musttail pass
onl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116134
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Caused by r15-2106-g44fcc1ca11e7ea .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116019
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116134
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116019
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116134
Bug ID: 116134
Summary: [15 Regression] ICE: 'verify_gimple' failed
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: midd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116133
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The check in internal-fn.cc is:
if (GET_MODE_2XWIDER_MODE (mode).exists (&wmode)
&& targetm.scalar_mode_supported_p (wmode)
&& can_widen_mult_without_libcall (wmode, mode, op0, op1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116133
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116133
Bug ID: 116133
Summary: Missing mult_overflow detection for aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95852
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116119
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I can build fine using these steps:
export TARGET=arm-linux-gnueabihf
export PREFIX=/tmp/rpi-toolchain
wget https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/binutils/binutils-2.31.tar.gz
tar xf binutils-2.31.tar.gz
cd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116132
Bug ID: 116132
Summary: New test case gfortran.dg/pr105361.f90 from
r15-2320-g3aeb697a2158d3 fails intermittently
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116131
Bug ID: 116131
Summary: [14/15 Regression] RISC-V: Unrecognizable insn with
xtheadmemidx
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97276
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115277
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sam James :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ca255ca2760a5e6176031ea62a9c29c7bb92c212
commit r15-2383-gca255ca2760a5e6176031ea62a9c29c7bb92c212
Author: Sam James
Date: Mon Jul 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24388
Emma Kivimaki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||natmari6117 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24381
Emma Kivimaki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||natmari6117 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24379
Emma Kivimaki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||natmari6117 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116128
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113860
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116130
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116130
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116103
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Stubbs ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #4)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > if (VECTOR_BOOLEAN_TYPE_P (type)
> > && SCALAR_INT_MODE_P (TYPE_MODE (type)))
> > return true;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109648
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115425
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka ---
*** Bug 109648 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113328
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113328
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109914
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
The idea is to help developers to annotate i.e. binary tree search function,
which he clearly knows is always to be finite, but compiler can not prove it.
Intentional infinite loops with no side effects writte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116129
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88313
Leonid Satanovsky changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||leonid.satanovsky at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115986
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115561
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115900
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 115900, which changed state.
Bug 115900 Summary: [14 Regression] constexpr object modification during
construction gives "Modifying a const object is not allowed in a constant
expression"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 115583, which changed state.
Bug 115583 Summary: [14 Regression] C++23: Call to consteval function in `if
consteval` immediate function context rejected at -O1 since r14-4140
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115583
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115900
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:da7f0be91e2ae15342541546152a7a27a601c4b4
commit r14-10521-gda7f0be91e2ae15342541546152a7a27a601c4b4
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116057
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a7f1b00ed69810ce7f000d385a60e148d0228d48
commit r14-10520-ga7f1b00ed69810ce7f000d385a60e148d0228d48
Author: Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116130
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Also there is
"If possible, it is recommended that implementations diagnose if an attribute
of this clause is applied to a function definition that does not have the
corresponding property."
so we'd want som
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115986
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:61cb0c889e1f9a9f4ea5b22bbe089a906410374a
commit r14-10519-g61cb0c889e1f9a9f4ea5b22bbe089a906410374a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116104
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Given the relatively unstructured nature of RTL and the error message, this is
almost certainly a bug in ext-dce. I should have noted that when I assigned
the issue to myself.
I've been able to trip it wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115583
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9662299593c0b028e5008def72744732da429e9f
commit r14-10518-g9662299593c0b028e5008def72744732da429e9f
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115986
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:56d5f8a60519f6c76df671e9f96acf995b0ffc6c
commit r14-10517-g56d5f8a60519f6c76df671e9f96acf995b0ffc6c
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115561
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f30caf1bda8a0d086d0308e5024c2b4c43cbd6c0
commit r14-10516-gf30caf1bda8a0d086d0308e5024c2b4c43cbd6c0
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116130
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116130
Bug ID: 116130
Summary: Implement C23 N2956 paper - [[unsequenced]] and
[[reproducible]] function type arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116129
Bug ID: 116129
Summary: Use SVE INDEX instruction to create constant vectors
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: aarch64-sve, missed-optimization
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111728
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |arsen at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116128
Bug ID: 116128
Summary: missed optimisation: fortran sum instrinsic performed
in order
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116056
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eugene at hutorny dot in.ua
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64053
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116104
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Stubbs ---
The problem insn is this:
(insn 31 30 32 2 (set (reg:V2SI 711)
(ashift:V2SI (reg:V2SI 161 v1)
(const_vector:V2SI [
(const_int 3 [0x3]) repeated x2
]))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116127
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113563
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eddiejnolan at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116124
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116127
--- Comment #2 from Tomer Vromen ---
Jakub, thanks for the quick answer!
I see that this is a POSIX extension. I also see that according to
cppreference, std::lgamma is "constexpr since C++26". I do wonder how that will
work.
Is there a conste
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116104
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Stubbs ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #1)
> So, how am I supposed to reproduce this? I don't have an assembler/binutils
> for amdgcn and thus libgcc won't configure. Thus I can't extract a testcase.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116127
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
