https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79387
Bug ID: 79387
Summary: Internal compiler error in convert_nontype_argument
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #37 from Aldy Hernandez ---
The patch that causes the bootstrap problem to go away is:
commit 42b45e81de1263454d6df22ca745db858c19e5b5
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Aug 12 14:27:40 2015 +
2015-08-12 Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #38 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 6 Feb 2017, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
>
> --- Comment #37 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> The patch that causes the bootstrap proble
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #40666|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79332
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #40 from Aldy Hernandez ---
I am correct to assume that there is no workable debugger capable of debugging
gcc on our AIX boxes?
power8-aix:~/bisect-succeeds/gcc$ gdb cc1
GNU gdb (GDB) 7.8.2
Copyright (C) 2014 Free Software Foundati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79385
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79380
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71824
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sun, 5 Feb 2017, drfiemost at email dot it wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71824
>
> --- Comment #13 from Leandro Nini ---
> I've applied the patch to the 6.3.1 2017020
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79282
--- Comment #4 from Christophe Lyon ---
I think the intention is to provide the alternatives with
"avoid_neon_for_64bits" as last resort: when Neon is not preferred, but
available, we can use it, but prefer to use GPR instead, so try them first.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79347
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79348
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79349
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79351
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79355
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79380
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79385
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79357
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71017
--- Comment #3 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Mon Feb 6 11:54:10 2017
New Revision: 245208
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245208&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-02-06 Dominique d'Humieres
PR target/71017
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79360
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79361
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78488
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||falemagn at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79362
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79363
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79364
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79386
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |rtl-optimization
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79379
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79377
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78345
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
r203985 is the first revision that accepts the #c4 testcase, r216750 is the
first revision that ICEs on it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at redhat dot com
--- Comment #41
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78634
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Schmidt ---
I don't know the machine, but with a branch cost of 1 this seems like it might
be expected. Do you think this is a testcase problem or something else?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79386
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79388
Bug ID: 79388
Summary: [6/7 Regression] wrong code with -O
-fno-tree-coalesce-vars
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79386
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- cprop.c.jj2 2017-01-30 09:31:48.0 +0100
+++ cprop.c 2017-02-06 14:09:24.316978439 +0100
@@ -1697,7 +1697,6 @@ bypass_conditional_jumps (void)
if (ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR_FOR_FN (cfun)->next_bb == E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79389
Bug ID: 79389
Summary: 30% performance regression in SciMark2 MonteCarlo
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79386
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Gah. If we clean up the CFG after bypass_conditional_jumps, it can crash if it
finds an unconditional trap in the middle of a block. If we do it beforehand,
we're referencing data by the wrong bb number.
May
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79390
Bug ID: 79390
Summary: 10% performance drop in SciMark2 LU after r242550
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79389
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #42 from David Edelsohn ---
The situation of GDB on AIX is not good.
I placed an older version of gdb-7.6 in my bin directory. You can try that. I
will see if I can get a copy of the AIX Toolbox GDB which contains some
additional pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79389
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
So we think the splitting is useful because on one path it exposes that
under_curve is unchanged which might expose a jump threading opportunity.
Not in this case so the possible jump threading opportunity n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79388
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78883
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Feb 6 13:38:56 2017
New Revision: 245209
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245209&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/78883
* config/avr/avr.c (rtl-iter.h): Inc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78883
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79386
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79360
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79390
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78634
--- Comment #6 from Dominik Vogt ---
It fails with -march=zEC12 but not with -march=z900. It seems to be a tuning
issue of the branch cost in the backend; a colleague is working on that and
will mave a patch at some time in the future. So, I th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79390
--- Comment #2 from krister.walfridsson at gmail dot com ---
No, I get the same reduced performance when using -fno-split-paths
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79390
--- Comment #3 from krister.walfridsson at gmail dot com ---
Correction: -fno-split-paths does not help the trunk compiler. But it restores
the result when using the r242550 compiler...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79348
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79311
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Reduced test:
module tensor_recursive
implicit none
type, public:: tens_signature_t
contains
final:: tens_signature_dtor
end type tens_signature_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79390
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
On trunk I see with -fno-split-paths:
.L5:
movq(%r14,%rdx,8), %rcx
vmovsd (%rcx,%rbx), %xmm0
vandpd %xmm3, %xmm0, %xmm0
vucomisd%xmm1, %xmm0
jbe .L4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79348
--- Comment #8 from Dominik Vogt ---
All right, but what is the cause of that? The commit that git-bisect found
seems to be completely unrelated(?)
Examples:
--
4
_ZGTtNSt11range_errorC2EPKc
transaction clone for std::range_error::range_error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=75964
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78348
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #11)
> Fails if configured with "--with-arch=zEC12", passes without that.
The innermost loop is fully unrolled. Looks like somebody bumped
--param max-unroll-times f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79359
--- Comment #2 from Raphael C ---
As an additional data point in relation to Part 2 (that is without
-ffast-math). In gcc 7 -O3 -ffinite-math-only gives
f:
movqQWORD PTR [rsp-16], xmm0
movss xmm3, DWORD PTR [rsp-12]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79348
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't think that commit is related. Those symbols where added by r232454 and
are defined when this condition is true:
+#if __cplusplus >= 201103L && _GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI \
+ && _GLIB
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79379
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78348
--- Comment #13 from Dominik Vogt ---
It still fails with
/* { dg-options "-O3 -fdump-tree-ldist-details --param max-unroll-times=8" } */
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78348
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #13)
> It still fails with
>
> /* { dg-options "-O3 -fdump-tree-ldist-details --param max-unroll-times=8" }
> */
Hmm, so maybe it was --param max-completely-peel-tim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78348
--- Comment #15 from Dominik Vogt ---
Yep. I'll post a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79389
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Please note that clang if-converts:
if ( x*x + y*y <= 1.0)
under_curve ++;
to SETcc + ADD:
5,64 │ movsd (%rsp),%xmm1
│ mulsd %xmm1,%xmm1
│ mulsd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78348
--- Comment #16 from Dominik Vogt ---
Patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-02/msg00424.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79134
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79348
--- Comment #10 from Dominik Vogt ---
Created attachment 40679
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40679&action=edit
test outpu
Full test output attached.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79383
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79316
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79379
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 40680
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40680&action=edit
gcc7-pr79379.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78348
--- Comment #17 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Mon Feb 6 15:14:09 2017
New Revision: 245210
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245210&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 78348: Limit amount of unrolling in test.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79087
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79347
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79388
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71144
--- Comment #6 from Dominik Vogt ---
This no longer happens with current trunk. The warnings are still present, but
the ICE is gone:
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #1)
> I get (pprobably) the same ICE on s390x with today's devel branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79377
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79372
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79382
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #2)
> The test compiles and executes if I remove the line
>
>public :: write (formatted)
Hi Walt and Dominique,
Should this be a syntax error or a quiet ign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79323
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Feb 6 16:39:56 2017
New Revision: 245211
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245211&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix test failure at -O0 by pruning output
PR libstdc++/79323
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79377
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79371
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79382
--- Comment #4 from Walt Brainerd ---
Sorry, I forgot to remove the extraneous USE statement
which cutting down from the original code.
I am not good with this new stuff; please explain what
the syntax error is? If the PUBLIC statement is not co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78480
--- Comment #1 from Joel Sherrill ---
Still occurs on:
gcc (GCC) 7.0.1 20170205 (experimental)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79391
Bug ID: 79391
Summary: sh ICE in in eligible_for_delay, at
config/sh/sh.md:564
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79149
--- Comment #11 from Arnd Bergmann ---
I've submitted a workaround for the kernel now, addressing the stack usage
warning on MIPS, as well as performance on ARM and others:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9555183/
The patch has two different
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79372
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78480
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
Why is this a gcc bug? newlib is not part of gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70448
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Feb 6 17:49:31 2017
New Revision: 245213
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245213&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-02-06 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/70448
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70448
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79392
Bug ID: 79392
Summary: MinGW-w64 backend: programs built with --coverage do
not create *.gcda files
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71144
--- Comment #7 from Dominik Vogt ---
The ICE (s390x) has gone away with this commit:
2017-01-31 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/77318
* graphite-sese-to-poly.c (extract_affine): Fix assert.
(create_pw_aff_from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79382
--- Comment #5 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Walt,
My reading of the situation is that since, in this version, the
generic procedure is typebound in a public derived type, the PUBLIC
attribute is already accorded it. I thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79347
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Further work needed. I did not fix the actual issue in vectorizer because I am
really lost in the new prologue code. I hope Bin will chime in and help me ;)
The situation is not that bad overall, but it could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #43 from David Edelsohn ---
I upgraded GDB on gcc119 with GDB 7.9.1 + IBM patches. It may work a little
better.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79393
Bug ID: 79393
Summary: [7 Regression] cc1plus rejects valid code with
noexcept
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79393
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79394
Bug ID: 79394
Summary: Possible rejects-valid problem
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79382
--- Comment #6 from Walt Brainerd ---
You are probably right, but I have done all this on my home computer,
so I need to look at things again this evening. I do have ifort there and
will let you know.
I was trying all kinds of variations and can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79332
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
That would be the %e / %n extraction intended for spec strings. In this
case, I think splitting the string constant between the % and the n should
avoid the %n extraction without affecting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79284
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 6 19:15:36 2017
New Revision: 245214
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245214&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/79284
* tree-vectorizer.h (VECT_SCALA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68664
--- Comment #18 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Feb 6 19:19:49 2017
New Revision: 245215
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245215&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
sched: Do not move expensive insns speculatively (PR68664)
Schedul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68664
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #19 from Segher Boe
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
