https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69461
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Even with your patch applied, I still get the same ICE when I compile e.g.
tramp3d-v4.cpp with -flto on ppc64le:
trippels@gcc2-power8 ~ % g++ -w -Ofast -flto=16 -mlra tramp3d-v4.cpp
tramp3d-v4.cpp: In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69525
Bug ID: 69525
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault in
ix86_expand_prologue
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69525
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.3.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69461
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Hmm,
trippels@gcc2-power8 ~ % cat tramp3d-v4.ii
class Init {
public:
~Init();
} a;
trippels@gcc2-power8 ~ % g++ -flto -mlra tramp3d-v4.ii
tramp3d-v4.ii: In function ‘__static_initialization_and_dest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
>
> Martin Sebor changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68758
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu Jan 28 08:39:05 2016
New Revision: 232915
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232915&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR pch/68758.
PR pch/68758
* ggc-common.c (gt_pch_sav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69525
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69525
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
(Too much) reduced testcase, it requires the uninit use of r:
typedef unsigned long long int ULong;
typedef union { ULong w64[2]; } V128;
typedef unsigned long HWord;
void amd64g_dirtyhelper_AES (HWord opc4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68758
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69422
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69526
Bug ID: 69526
Summary: ivopts candidate strangeness
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68241
Bug 68241 depends on bug 69422, which changed state.
Bug 69422 Summary: Unexpected result with allocatable character type component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69422
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69385
--- Comment #19 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #18)
> Author: pault
> Date: Wed Jan 27 21:24:01 2016
> New Revision: 232904
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232904&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> 2016-01-27 Paul T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69523
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69525
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69522
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69521
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69518
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69517
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454
--- Comment #35 from Richard Biener ---
I wonder why LRA cannot spill using unaligned moves?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69516
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69466
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69466
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jan 28 09:10:30 2016
New Revision: 232916
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232916&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-28 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/69466
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69526
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68176
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69527
Bug ID: 69527
Summary: Rubbish code within 'switch' doesn't trigger warning
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68176
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, while I don't have eglibc, I've hacked my /usr/include/stdc-predef.h to
#include and added that header, without the patch I see many
FAILs with make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS=pch.exp, with the patch none.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69527
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69526
--- Comment #2 from rdapp at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
Ok, that's sensible but why is the - 1 necessary in the first place?
n_5 - 1 can only underflow if n_5 == 0 which is checked by
testl %edx, %edx
before. This is in a previous basic block,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69520
--- Comment #3 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #2)
> Harald, if you have commits rights or are interested in getting such, let me
> know and we can let you take this one. (Otherwise I will do so)
Hi Jerry,
I'd be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51896
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pancik at rfelements dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69527
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51896
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49859
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kaie at kuix dot de
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49859
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69503
--- Comment #2 from Vincent Beffara ---
Ah BTW tested one more thing, using -std=c++11 rather than -std=c++14 runs fine
as well without a crash
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69447
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at breakpoint dot cc
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69124
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69526
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rdapp from comment #2)
> Ok, that's sensible but why is the - 1 necessary in the first place?
>
> n_5 - 1 can only underflow if n_5 == 0 which is checked by
>
> testl %edx, %edx
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62536
--- Comment #9 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Thu Jan 28 10:36:30 2016
New Revision: 232918
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232918&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-01-28 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69528
Bug ID: 69528
Summary: s/s390: ext/special_functions/hyperg lots of failures
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69528
--- Comment #1 from Dominik Vogt ---
3: 1.25024e-12 2.5e-13
test(data233, toler233)
0: 1.09304e-12 2.5e-13
1: 8.62418e-13 2.5e-13
test(data236, toler236)
0: 1.87073e-10 2.5e-13
1: 6.94984e-12 2.5e-13
2: 9.47298e-12 2.5e-13
3: 3.09248e-12 2.5e-13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69529
Bug ID: 69529
Summary: s/390: special_functions/02_assoc_legendre failure
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65686
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> So, does the https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13962#c9 patch
> help here?
Yes. With it we simplify the function during early FRE to
f (struct S *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65686
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
So we can simplify the fix for PR13962 by only considering pointer with decl
compares which points-to should handle well enough (and not fall into the issue
of bogus ptr1 vs. ptr2 simplifications because we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65686
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.4 |7.0
Summary|[5/6 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69482
--- Comment #6 from wipedout at yandex dot ru ---
The explanations sound reasonable so far. Yet I expect that this problem will
be reported again and again because WOW A SECURITY HOLE so perhaps it'd be
reasonable to change gcc behavior so that wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69522
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69531
Bug ID: 69531
Summary: Implement CWG 1307; Differently bounded array
parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69530
Bug ID: 69530
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in ix86_split_long_move
(i386.c:24353) with -fno-split-wide-types -mavx
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69482
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016, wipedout at yandex dot ru wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69482
>
> --- Comment #6 from wipedout at yandex dot ru ---
> The explanations sound reasonabl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69522
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.5.4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69528
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69513
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69523
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Not sure how namespace std should be special then though.
Suffixes that don't start without underscore are reserved, but so are all names
in namespace std. It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62536
--- Comment #10 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Thu Jan 28 11:34:03 2016
New Revision: 232919
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232919&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
2016-01-28 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69506
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69522
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
More archeology: an ICE started with (probably) r191706, and went away with
r206957.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69399
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Summ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67205
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|violation of|eliminate
|No_Implicit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67205
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69526
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rdapp from comment #2)
> Ok, that's sensible but why is the - 1 necessary in the first place?
>
> n_5 - 1 can only underflow if n_5 == 0 which is checked by
>
> testl %edx, %edx
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69513
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Ah, I guess a simpler patch could be to do
while ((node = limbo_die_list))
{
limbo_die_list = node->next;
... old code ...
}
I'd even approve that based on the fact we use get_context_die her
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68763
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 37506
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37506&action=edit
gcc6-pr68763.patch
Partial fix. With the testcase reduction, I gave up, got only 4.7% reduction
after 6 hours
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69532
Bug ID: 69532
Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/arm/vect-fmaxmin.c execution test on
armv7
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69529
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Also PR 69295, is this still a problem on current trunk (post r232879)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69529
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And if yes, does adding -ffloat-store to the options in the test help?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69532
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david.sherwood at arm dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69532
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69528
Dominik Vogt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69529
Dominik Vogt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69530
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69533
Bug ID: 69533
Summary: [6 Regression] python miscompilation
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69533
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69534
Bug ID: 69534
Summary: [6 Regression] openjade is miscompiled
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69534
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69535
Bug ID: 69535
Summary: [6 Regression] wrong code with -O -fno-tree-bit-ccp
-fno-tree-reassoc due to use of uninitialised value
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68896
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69530
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
The post-reload splitter chokes on a subreg.
(define_split
[(set (match_operand:TI 0 "nonimmediate_operand")
(match_operand:TI 1 "general_operand"))]
"reload_completed
&& !SSE_REG_P (operands[0]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69530
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69536
Bug ID: 69536
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/lto/20110201-1
c_lto_20110201-1_0.o-c_lto_20110201-1_0.o link, -O0
-flto -fno-math-errno -mfloat-abi=softfp
-mfpu=neon-vfpv4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69535
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 37507
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37507&action=edit
reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69532
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|FAIL: |FAIL:
|gcc.t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69499
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62536
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #11 from v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69524
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69450
--- Comment #11 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Thu Jan 28 13:09:23 2016
New Revision: 232925
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232925&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/69450
* acinclude.m4 (GLIBCXX_CHECK_MA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69516
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69535
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69450
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69537
Bug ID: 69537
Summary: Incorrect -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning with enum
variable
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69537
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69536
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69537
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
r225860 vs. r225861 differences start at forwprop1:
- if (_5 != 0)
+ result_6 = (clnt_stat) _5;
+ if (result_6 != 0)
and after a while, with r225861+ we even have more bbs than previously, and
only RTL opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69536
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The -mfloat-abi=softfp should probably be just removed.
For hardfloat targets 'hard' will be applied by default.
For softfp targets it will be 'softfp'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69537
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69519
--- Comment #1 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Here is a code before RA:
5: r87:DI=[`a']
14: r92:DI=[`b']
8: r91:DI#0=r87:DI#0^r92:DI#0
REG_UNUSED flags:CC
9: [`a']=r91:DI
REG_DEAD r91:DI
10: call [`fn2'] argc:0
REG_CA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #42 from David Edelsohn ---
Author: dje
Date: Thu Jan 28 13:48:00 2016
New Revision: 232926
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232926&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/63679
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/sra-17.c: Adjust regex f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69227
Andre Vieira changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 231 matches
Mail list logo
