https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91420
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #11 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121216
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121216
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6acf9501771b8a26643fe6b887eb2d9b6d008b47
commit r16-2436-g6acf9501771b8a26643fe6b887eb2d9b6d008b47
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118440
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note this is NOT wrong code to store a zero there since you are storing from an
uninitialized value.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118440
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Wrong zero initialization |a store from an
|with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #13 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 61947
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61947&action=edit
Shorter reproducer, polarization_test v2
Just a bit more than 4,000 lines, compare the output with correct.tx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103648
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note -fdisable-rtl-init-regs fixes this one which is why it is a dup of bug
98884.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103648
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98884
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||boleyn.su at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101926
Bug 101926 depends on bug 103648, which changed state.
Bug 103648 Summary: Missed optimization on arm64 when returning an empty struct.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103648
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79716
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=121222
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Kees Cook from comment #6)
> The primary difference is the compile-time guard for instrumentation that
> depends on stack usage.
What value do you normally pass for
-fsanitize-coverage-stack-de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121222
--- Comment #6 from Kees Cook ---
The primary difference is the compile-time guard for instrumentation that
depends on stack usage.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120101
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2fda72d1315b72e9d43b05da2f260e5c59aaad41
commit r16-2435-g2fda72d1315b72e9d43b05da2f260e5c59aaad41
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120101
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120101
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #12 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #11)
> (In reply to kargls from comment #10)
> > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #8)
> > > Created attachment 61945 [details]
> > > Reproducer, single file, first pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121222
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121222
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
How is it different from doing a similar thing from mcount?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121222
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #3 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121222
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note this is hugely misnamed option. There is no sanitizing involved.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121222
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Is there a reason why fstack-limit-symbol orfstack-check could not be used for
this instead? Since those are similar features and supported longer in gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121222
Bug ID: 121222
Summary: add support for -fsanitize-coverage=stack-depth
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4131
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11211
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121149
--- Comment #10 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> I think the canonical is the right fix. Most likely the other needs to be
> changed too. Of nobody gets to it before tomorrow i will handle it.
I think yo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121065
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120523
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
Summary|gcc.dg/tree-ssa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110131
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #14)
> This was fixed by r14-7148-g7f56a90269b393
Which makes sense since it started with r12-6924-gc2b610e7c6c .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110131
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #11 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #10)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #8)
> > Created attachment 61945 [details]
> > Reproducer, single file, first part (polarization test)
>
> This is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120614
--- Comment #21 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I looked into 531.deepsjeng_r. For deepsjeng_r we see similar performance for
AutoFDO as without it. Still looks like we have a missed opportunity there as
srearch() now accounts for higher time i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121220
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101603
Bug 101603 depends on bug 121221, which changed state.
Bug 121221 Summary: [13/14/15/16 Regression] Warning produced with -O3: array
subscript 'int (**)(...)[0]' is partly outside array bounds of 'f(bool)::A [1]'
[-Werror=array-bounds=]
https:/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 121221, which changed state.
Bug 121221 Summary: [13/14/15/16 Regression] Warning produced with -O3: array
subscript 'int (**)(...)[0]' is partly outside array bounds of 'f(bool)::A [1]'
[-Werror=array-bounds=]
https://g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111750
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michaelkinrosslim at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121221
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121221
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.5
Summary|Warning produce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121221
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61943|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121115
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> Look into resolve_workqueue. I think there is an alias violation in there.
>
> __gc_stkf is an array of 3 void* and is stored via void*.
> (_2-8B)->gcstack is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121115
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121115
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #9 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I reduced two cases from our code to single files. The ref-output contains the
expected outputs, the err-output the wrong output produced by gcc/gfortran
16.0.0 git master.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61923|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121115
--- Comment #8 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Created attachment 61944
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61944&action=edit
Reduced reproducer
Shorter reproducer. The miscompiled function is jl_emit_native_impl(), which is
d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121221
Bug ID: 121221
Summary: array subscript 'int (**)(...)[0]' is partly outside
array bounds of 'f(bool)::A [1]'
[-Werror=array-bounds=]
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121220
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121220
Bug ID: 121220
Summary: Missed optimization: Lowering struct materialization
into cold branches
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61891|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fdbc5ff61b471076cc9c758fb6c30d62f7ef1c56
commit r16-2432-gfdbc5ff61b471076cc9c758fb6c30d62f7ef1c56
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121085
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121209
--- Comment #10 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I guess if you are really pedantic the wording can be read in this way. I do
not think it was the intention that an implementation only adds "the choice is
random" to the documentation and I have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121219
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Coroutine `operator new`|[16 regression] Coroutine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121219
Bug ID: 121219
Summary: Coroutine `operator new` heap-use-after-free on trunk
(16.0), regression from 15.1
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121209
--- Comment #9 from Halalaluyafail3 ---
(In reply to uecker from comment #8)
> No, it has to make a decision and document it. For GCC this is here:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Types-implementation.html
C23 defines implementation-defi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120144
--- Comment #9 from pietro ---
Does this patch for PR120935 fix this issue for MIPS too? I tried building a
mips64-elf cross but my scripts failed so I don't have a quick way to check it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-July/6895
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121019
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||internal-improvement
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121151
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-07-22
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121181
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-07-22
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121171
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-07-22
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121151
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Summary|ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121203
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121091
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
New patch submitted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-July/690240.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119737
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tschwinge at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111459
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> So i have a patch for cfgcleanup but it causes a regression which looks like
> a fake one. I will finish it up later today. Dceing more definitely will
> improve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120119
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
Patch submitted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-July/690239.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121209
--- Comment #8 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Halalaluyafail3 from comment #7)
> (In reply to uecker from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Halalaluyafail3 from comment #5)
> > > Is it not required that the composite type of two types
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Tomasz Kamiński from comment #9)
> I remember that LWG3436 was discussed in core in Varna
> (https://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21varna/CoreWorkingGroup#LWG3436) and the
> current wording is resul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109267
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109267
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:31e8896dcd87279be73674e8f2258db26d7a6e1e
commit r16-2429-g31e8896dcd87279be73674e8f2258db26d7a6e1e
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120004
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:31e8896dcd87279be73674e8f2258db26d7a6e1e
commit r16-2429-g31e8896dcd87279be73674e8f2258db26d7a6e1e
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61927|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121209
--- Comment #7 from Halalaluyafail3 ---
(In reply to uecker from comment #6)
> (In reply to Halalaluyafail3 from comment #5)
> > Is it not required that the composite type of two types has to be the same
> > when obtaining it twice, or that the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121215
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
possible fix:
```
[apinski@xeond2 lib]$ git diff profopt.exp
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/profopt.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/profopt.exp
index b4d244b3132..13cc5956ec8 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/profopt.e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121215
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
I can reproduce it with just:
make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="tree-prof.exp=afdo-crossmodule-1.c
tree-ssa.exp=pr67891.c"
(well I had to hack it so check_profiling_available for -fauto-profile would
return 0).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108958
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(Btw, the subject says "powerpcle", but this is about something very different:
powerpc64le. "powerpcle" is also a valid first component of a target triple!
Almost no one used 32-bit PowerPC in wrong-e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120805
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Hi!
(In reply to Avinash Jayakar from comment #12)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #10)
> > As a meta-comment: almost everything using scan-assembler-times is
> > obfuscated.
> >
> > It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121200
--- Comment #10 from Jean-Michaël Celerier ---
Thanks! Ubuntu will likely never upgrade 14 (last update to the package was a
year ago) so I guess I'll just have to tell my users to upgrade on their own..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120805
--- Comment #13 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Avinash Jayakar from comment #11)
>
> > I think the code before worked because a non-partial epilogue would have
> > niters_vector
> > be a const (e.g. a gimple value) but the partial iterati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121218
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61940
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61940&action=edit
interleaved_test_bigger.cxx.xz
This one aborts on a miscomparison.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119085
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a fix on the mailing list:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/ri6wm80s22z@virgil.suse.cz/T/#u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121199
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
It looks a bit like this was fixed in gcc-9.
Based on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714#c19
I suspect this is just a dup of that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121218
Jan Wassenberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jan.wassenberg at gmail dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119137
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tomasz Kaminski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f59cb28d53b62aa080da60617109440b303ceb2b
commit r16-2424-gf59cb28d53b62aa080da60617109440b303ceb2b
Author: Tomasz KamiÅski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121218
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #4)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> > I'm not sure what's that supposed to test? Is that already a reduced
> > testcase?
>
> Yeah, it's already reduced
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121218
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> I'm not sure what's that supposed to test? Is that already a reduced
> testcase?
Yeah, it's already reduced. Let me go back a bit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121218
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #10 from Tomasz Kamiński ---
If the object pointed by __location is not transparently replaceable, for
example if I would create an object inside std::byte array that is an member,
then does std::launder(__location) produce pointer t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121218
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121218
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.2
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
I'm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121218
Bug ID: 121218
Summary: [15/16 regression] highway miscompiled at -O2
-march=znver2 since r15-3036-gb8ea13ebf12117
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121216
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121217
Bug ID: 121217
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
comptypes_equiv_p since 15.1 with -std=c2x
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121216
Bug ID: 121216
Summary: internal compiler error: in tree_to_uhwi, at
tree.cc:6660 since 13.1 with -std=c2x
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121215
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
And yes I noticed it but not in my local builds but with Linaro's builders on a
separate patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121028
Spencer Abson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sabson at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121215
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121205
--- Comment #2 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #1)
> With checking, I also see:
>
> +FAIL: gcc.target/i386/asm-hard-reg-1.c (internal compiler error: RTL check:
> expected elt 3 type 'e' or 'u', have '0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120747
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #16)
> Looks like the same issue as those others listed as `see also`. Basically
> reassociation is tied to the ssa #s and any small improvements to other code
> ear
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
