https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67494
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Any update on this issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70830
Thorsten Czujack changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||serv...@ant-solutions.net
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44265
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still in 5.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67494
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
No, it's low priority, the SPITBOL-like units are rarely used in practice.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50069
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still in 5.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70821
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70840
Bug ID: 70840
Summary: revisit reassoc handling of pow / powi, amend match.pd
for powi
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70777
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Apr 28 07:55:33 2016
New Revision: 235545
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235545&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-04-28 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/70777
* fol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70777
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70832
--- Comment #2 from Lorenzo Pistone ---
I should add also that this makes impossible to assign lambdas with move-only
captures to a std::function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70821
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70841
Bug ID: 70841
Summary: reassoc fails to handle FP division
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70832
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70837
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70838
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 70837 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70839
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70836
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70838
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 70836 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70838
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70831
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build, lto
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70839
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
> But the actual 6.1.0 release works, right?
No, unfortunately not: that's where I first noticed the problem when
building 6.1.0 from the tarbal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70829
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Note that this compares LTO bytecode, see also PR62077.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70827
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70826
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70842
Bug ID: 70842
Summary: internal compiler error with character members within
a polymorphic pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70830
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm*
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70842
--- Comment #1 from nathanael.huebbe at informatik dot uni-hamburg.de ---
Created attachment 38357
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38357&action=edit
Code to reproduced the bug
the forgotten attachment...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70843
Bug ID: 70843
Summary: ICE in add_expr, at tree.c:7913
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70821
--- Comment #3 from dhowells at redhat dot com ---
Yes, I'm testing with -Os.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67497
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still in gfortran 5.3.0
/home/vitti/gcc-5.3.0/gcc/fortran/data.c:191:32: runtime error: null
pointer passed as argument 2, which is declared to never be null
data.c:191 "memcpy (&dest[start], rvalue->value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67498
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still in gfortran 5.3.0
/home/vitti/gcc-5.3.0/gcc/fortran/interface.c:2707:33: runtime error:
load of value 1818451807, which is not a valid value for type 'expr_t'
interface.c:2707 "&& f->sym->ts.u.cl->le
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70844
Bug ID: 70844
Summary: spurious -Wuseless-cast warning with inherited
constructors
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67484
--- Comment #14 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I still get it in g++ 5.3.0
You may reproduce this one with a version of g++ compiled with
-fsanitize=address
[vitti cc]$/home/vitti/1tb/vitti/local/gcc-5.3.0-address/bin/g++ gccerr26.C -S
===
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70821
--- Comment #4 from dhowells at redhat dot com ---
The patch works, thanks:
001c :
1c: f0 ff 0flock decl (%rdi)
1f: ba 00 00 00 00 mov$0x0,%edx
24: b8 00 00 00 00 mov$0x0,%eax
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70843
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
Component|other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59549
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo ---
Ran over the following in sh.c, maybe it's related:
/* For Shcompact, if not optimizing, we end up with a memory reference
using the return address pointer for __builtin_return_address even
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70825
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70825
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64, aarch64
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70786
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70540
--- Comment #8 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Apr 28 09:58:45 2016
New Revision: 235552
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235552&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2016-04-28 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/70540
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70540
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70842
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49244
--- Comment #7 from dhowells at redhat dot com ---
We should also be able to reduce:
bool
test_bit (int *a, int bit)
{
uint mask = (1u << bit);
return (__atomic_load_n (a, __ATOMIC_xxx) & mask) != 0;
}
to a BT instruction on x86.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70829
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Works for me btw.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49244
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to dhowe...@redhat.com from comment #6)
> I'm looking to implement Linux kernel atomics with C++-11 intrinsics, so
> being able to reduce a CMPXCHG-loop to BTR/BTS/BTC would be really handy.
BTW: A l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69489
--- Comment #17 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The if-converted loop of the reported test is as:
:
# i_27 = PHI <0(3), i_21(5)>
# n1_29 = PHI <0(3), n1_20(5)>
# n2_28 = PHI <0(3), n2_34(5)>
i.1_7 = (sizetype) i_27;
_9 = u_8(D) + i.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70830
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70759
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Apr 28 10:49:13 2016
New Revision: 235553
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235553&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2016-04-27 Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69489
--- Comment #18 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So the question is why if-conversion generates:
_43 = _44 & _45;
_ifc__40 = _43 ? 1 : 0;
n2_34 = n2_28 + _ifc__40;
Not:
_43 = _44 & _45;
_XXX = (long int) _43;
n2_34 = n2_28 + _XXX;
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70759
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70839
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70786
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Apr 28 10:58:38 2016
New Revision: 235554
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235554&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/70786
* a-textio.adb (Get_Immediate): Add missi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70786
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Apr 28 10:58:54 2016
New Revision: 23
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=23&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/70786
* a-textio.adb (Get_Immediate): Add missi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70786
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Apr 28 10:59:05 2016
New Revision: 235556
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235556&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/70786
* a-textio.adb (Get_Immediate): Add missi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70786
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Apr 28 10:59:17 2016
New Revision: 235557
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235557&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/70786
* a-textio.adb (Get_Immediate): Add missi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70759
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70786
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70845
Bug ID: 70845
Summary: inherited piecewise_construct_t constructor from
std::pair by "using-declarations" is missing
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70846
Bug ID: 70846
Summary: GCC doesn't respond when compile my code
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70843
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70845
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70845
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70843
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 38361
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38361&action=edit
gcc7-pr70843.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70847
Bug ID: 70847
Summary: exponential time in cp_fold for chained virtual
function calls
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70845
--- Comment #2 from Wei-Wei Tu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Complete testcase (would it really have hurt to include the headers to make
> the testcase valid?)
>
> #include
> #include
> #include
>
> struct Test : public
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70344
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70847
--- Comment #1 from Jens Maurer ---
This situation is similar to bug 70342, except that my testcase
- involves no -fsanitize=undefined,
- is shorter,
- hinges on "virtual", and
- is a regression vs. gcc 5.x.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70827
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This is rejected since r233719.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70848
Bug ID: 70848
Summary: g++ arm-none-eabi ignores volatile qualifier
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70848
--- Comment #1 from Hendrik Borghorst
---
Created attachment 38363
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38363&action=edit
Intermediate file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70848
--- Comment #2 from Hendrik Borghorst
---
Created attachment 38364
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38364&action=edit
Produced assembly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70848
--- Comment #3 from Hendrik Borghorst
---
The sourcefile was compiled with:
arm-none-eabi-g++ -save-temps -O3 -c test.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70847
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70848
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70756
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70848
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Also, this happens only for g++, compiling with gcc doesn't eliminate the
stores
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70766
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Apr 28 12:33:07 2016
New Revision: 235565
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235565&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libstdc++/70766 use std::addressof instead of operator&
PR libst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70840
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Apr 28 12:34:28 2016
New Revision: 235566
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235566&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-04-28 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/70840
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70848
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Somehow the C++ FE interferes with gimplification of the correct GENERIC prior
to gimplification.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70826
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Can you reproduce that with the testcase reduced a bit? What does the mfcr
instruction do?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70848
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Ah, no, it's still ok:
:
_1 = 327221280B;
*_1 ={v} 97;
_2 = 327221280B;
*_2 ={v} 98;
_3 = 327221280B;
*_3 ={v} 99;
return;
and it works for x86_64-linux. -O2:
_Z4testv:
.LFB0:
.cf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70848
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
With an old cross to arm I can indeed see (.018t.ssa):
void test() ()
{
volatile int * _1;
volatile int * _4;
volatile int * _6;
:
_1 = 327221280B;
*_1 = 97;
_4 = 327221280B;
*_4 = 98;
_6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70766
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70848
--- Comment #9 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This also happens for:
volatile int *p;
void test()
{
(*(volatile int*)(p)) = 'a';
(*(volatile int*)(p)) = 'b';
(*(volatile int*)(p)) = 'c';
}
if you don't want to writ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70829
--- Comment #3 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Works for me too with r235554.
Shall I close it with RESOLVED FIXED ?
Thanks,
Prathamesh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49244
--- Comment #9 from dhowells at redhat dot com ---
> BTW: A low-hanging fruit in this area would be using new asm flags feature,
Heh - I remember asking for that years ago and being told it couldn't be done.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70848
--- Comment #10 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> With an old cross to arm I can indeed see (.018t.ssa):
>
> void test() ()
> {
> volatile int * _1;
> volatile int * _4;
> volatile int * _6;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49244
--- Comment #10 from dhowells at redhat dot com ---
A partial optimisation could be made if the mask is constant and only contains
one bit (or/xor) or only lacks one bit (and). That is the most common case in
the kernel by far, but it would stil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70849
Bug ID: 70849
Summary: Loop can be vectorized through gathers on AVX2
platforms.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70850
Bug ID: 70850
Summary: Bootstrap fails building libgo: gccgo: error:
../x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libgo/zstdpkglist.go: No such
file or directory
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70849
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 38365
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38365&action=edit
test-case to reproduce
Must be compiled with -O3 -mavx2 options
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68860
Bill Seurer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at linux dot
vnet.ibm.com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68860
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 28 Apr 2016, seurer at linux dot vnet.ibm.com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68860
>
> Bill Seurer changed:
>
>What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68860
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Bill Seurer from comment #9)
> The pr36728 and pr68860 test cases that check the arguments (where the
> arguments are unused) all currently (and for a long time) fail on power.
> They show up a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70845
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Wei-Wei Tu from comment #2)
> This is the test case
Yes, I know, I already added it in comment 1 :-)
Preprocessed source from gcc-5 fails, so this is due to some front-end change
(either gett
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69489
--- Comment #19 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
:
# i_27 = PHI <0(3), i_21(5)>
# n1_29 = PHI <0(3), n1_20(5)>
# n2_28 = PHI <0(3), n2_34(5)>
i.1_7 = (sizetype) i_27;
_9 = u_8(D) + i.1_7;
_11 = *_9;
_13 = v_12(D) + i.1_7;
_14 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70820
--- Comment #5 from Fabio Rocha ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> (In reply to Fabio Rocha from comment #3)
> > Still, it feels pretty strange that uncommenting the "First Assert" is what
> > makes the code incorrect...
>
> Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70850
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Do not configure in srcdir.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70849
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62314
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 209 matches
Mail list logo
