https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70541
Maxim Ostapenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m.ostapenko at samsung dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70541
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70542
Bug ID: 70542
Summary: [6 Regression] Wrong code with -O3 -mavx2.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70542
Vsevolod Livinskiy changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #38187|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70541
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Maxim Ostapenko from comment #1)
> @@ -2060,7 +2067,20 @@ maybe_instrument_call (gimple_stmt_iterator *iter)
>return true;
> }
If the function call returns a struct, then your patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70499
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Apr 5 08:05:06 2016
New Revision: 234738
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234738&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-04-05 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/70499
* gim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70525
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 5 08:15:09 2016
New Revision: 234739
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234739&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70525
* config/i386/sse.md (*andnot3): Simplify
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70510
Kirill Yukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70510
--- Comment #3 from Kirill Yukhin ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2)
> (In reply to Kirill Yukhin from comment #1)
> > will take a look.
>
> I have patch in testing:
>
Oh, great! Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70525
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 5 08:23:46 2016
New Revision: 234740
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234740&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70525
* config/i386/sse.md (*andnot3): Simplify
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70525
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70542
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70499
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Component|tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #14)
> > if (fmt == &ibm_extended_double)
>
> No, there is mips_extended_format too.
As said above the best is to provide optabs for all three fns and optimal
implemen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70543
Bug ID: 70543
Summary: [6 Regression] wrong non-const error for enable_if and
constexpr function
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70543
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo ---
A slightly reduced version:
#include
template struct X
{
template static constexpr
typename std::enable_if< I == 5, unsigned int>::type
calc (void)
{
return 0;
}
template static constexpr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70544
Bug ID: 70544
Summary: Overload resolution with explicitly specified template
arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70542
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70545
Bug ID: 70545
Summary: [openacc] gfortran.dg/goacc/kernels-loop-n.f95 not
parallelized
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68787
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #2)
> This is in particular problematic for fortran and fopenmp/fopenacc, where
> the non-aliasing of parameters arrays in fortran is implemented by annotated
> those
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70543
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #1)
>
> If the marked line is changed to
>
> static constexpr unsigned int value = calc<0> ();
>
> it compiles fine.
However, if doing that "trick" in the bigger producti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68787
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
One possibility would be to re-run non-IPA PTA just to compute restrict info,
that is, instead of bailing out when cfun->gimple_df->ipa_pta just not update
SSA pointer-info but still call compute_dependence_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66693
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70543
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70542
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70540
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70536
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70541
--- Comment #4 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> (In reply to Maxim Ostapenko from comment #1)
> > @@ -2060,7 +2067,20 @@ maybe_instrument_call (gimple_stmt_iterator *iter)
> >return true;
> > }
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70526
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias, wrong-code
Status|RE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70546
Bug ID: 70546
Summary: ifconvert if(cond) ++count; to count += cond;
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235
--- Comment #27 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Tue Apr 5 09:44:17 2016
New Revision: 234741
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234741&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-04-05 Jerry DeLisle
Dominique d'Humiere
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60244
--- Comment #11 from Vladimír Čunát ---
OK, I'm abandoning this problem, regardless of which package actually causes
the problem. I can't see how to progress and I've got some workarounds for my
case: either downgrading to binutils-2.25.1 or upgr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70529
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235
--- Comment #28 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Tue Apr 5 10:01:17 2016
New Revision: 234742
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234742&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-04-05 Jerry DeLisle
Dominique d'Humiere
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70542
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This goes wrong during the REE pass.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70547
Bug ID: 70547
Summary: Optimize multiplication of booleans to bit_and
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68787
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 38189
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38189&action=edit
patch to recompute restrict info after ipa-pta
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> One pos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70526
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Looks like a SRA bug to me replacing
D.2447 = MEM[(const struct Register &)&D.2394];
D.2404 = D.2447;
_5 = D.2404.reg_;
with
SR.8_3 = MEM[(struct TypedOrValueRegister *)&D.2394];
SR.7_4 = SR.8_3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70547
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70474
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
As reported in bugzilla the patch fixes the issue. What is your plan about it?
TIA
Dominique
> Le 31 mars 2016 à 11:26, m.ostapenko at samsung dot com
> a écrit :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70546
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52788
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30802
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Edouard.Canot at irisa dot fr
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27766
Bug 27766 depends on bug 52788, which changed state.
Bug 52788 Summary: -fbounds-check fails for 2-rank allocatable arrays when
reading
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52788
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69788
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68787
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 5 Apr 2016, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68787
>
> --- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Created attachment 38189
> --> ht
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68787
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Oh, and with LTO you _should_ see all pointed-to objects and thus restrict
should be no longer necessary... (well, in theory)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70474
--- Comment #5 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Eh, just forgot about this one, sorry. Will post the patch shortly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70542
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68226
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70341
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Priority|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70436
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65438
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70437
--- Comment #3 from ville at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ville
Date: Tue Apr 5 11:31:30 2016
New Revision: 234743
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234743&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/70437
* include/bits/stl_pair.h (_C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70526
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Component|rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70474
--- Comment #6 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Tue Apr 5 11:52:34 2016
New Revision: 234744
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234744&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Cherry-pick r224315,221379 and r241487 from upstream.
libsa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70437
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70542
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 38190
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38190&action=edit
gcc6-pr70542.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70474
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70542
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 38191
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38191&action=edit
gcc6-pr70542.patch
Perhaps better fix. Looking at PR64286, the comment is right, if we change
somehow the defi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70520
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70520
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70539
Bug ID: 70539
Summary: ICE on invalid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in
cxx_incomplete_type_diagnostic, at cp/typeck2.c:569
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70539
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70540
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
*** Bug 70539 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70520
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab ---
Does this really make a difference? I think the attribute still applies to the
object, not the type.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70548
Bug ID: 70548
Summary: gdb pretty printers hang and spin cpu in gdb session.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70503
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Apr 5 13:35:32 2016
New Revision: 234746
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234746&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Ensure std::thread helpers have internal linkage
PR libstdc++/70
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69331
Bill Seurer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at linux dot
vnet.ibm.com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70475
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69331
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |libstdc++
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69331
--- Comment #10 from Andreas Schwab ---
It really affects all targets and is not a new problem. You can find thousands
of hits on gcc-testresults.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70526
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Apr 5 14:26:59 2016
New Revision: 234749
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234749&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-04-05 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/70526
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70526
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69331
--- Comment #12 from Christophe Lyon ---
How do people handle this in practice? I mean it's creating a lot of noise when
you are trying to track regressions.
That's the main reason why I refrained from automating sending regression
warnings :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70503
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69331
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, I'm pretty sure it's not a regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70475
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|UNCONFIRMED
Assignee|ppalka at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70539
--- Comment #2 from Zhendong Su ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> Dup?
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 70540 ***
Sorry for the noise; it wasn't intentional. The server somehow wasn't
responding, and I clic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70513
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69331
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6 regression] FAIL:|FAIL:
|20_util/shared
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70463
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70463
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oops, clipboard fail, that's not what I thought I was pasting, this is:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/shared_ptr.cc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/shared_ptr.cc
@@ -41,7 +41,10 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VER
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70549
Bug ID: 70549
Summary: insn does not satisfy its constraints aarch64 gcc-4.8
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70549
--- Comment #1 from softadmin.lesia at obspm dot fr ---
Created attachment 38193
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38193&action=edit
preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69331
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #14 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70549
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70550
Bug ID: 70550
Summary: -Wuninitialized false positives in OpenMP code
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70550
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70549
--- Comment #3 from julien.brule at obspm dot fr ---
Le 05/04/2016 17:24, ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org a écrit :
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70549
>
> ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70550
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 38194
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38194&action=edit
gcc6-pr70550.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70513
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
No, I misunderstood, that would make us accept the code. But at least I have
simpler testcase:
struct S
{
enum E : int;
enum S::E : int { foo } e;
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70510
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Apr 5 16:26:40 2016
New Revision: 234752
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234752&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70510
* config/i386/sse.md (iptr): Add V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70549
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70551
Bug ID: 70551
Summary: member function of template instantiated even though
only declaration is needed
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70452
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Tue Apr 5 16:40:00 2016
New Revision: 234753
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234753&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR c++/70452 (regression in C++ parsing performance)
gcc/cp/ChangeL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70463
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70509
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 5 16:58:50 2016
New Revision: 234754
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234754&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/70509
* tree-ssa-forwprop.c (simplify
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67376
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Summary|[5/6 regression] C
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
