https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83363
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I cannot reproduce the problem. It generates better optimised code
than before (removing half the insns in foo), but it is still correct
and does not abort.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83364
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I cannot reproduce this one, either. I built with r29.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81889
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Dec 12 08:50:31 2017
New Revision: 255573
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255573&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-12 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/81889
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81889
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Summary|[7/8 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80631
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 12 08:55:02 2017
New Revision: 255574
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255574&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/80631
* tree-vect-loop.c (get_initial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83382
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83383
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83385
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83384
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83386
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80631
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] |[6/7 Regression] Compiling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83388
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81179
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Summ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P4 |P1
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83372
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|2017-12-11 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83388
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Compilation with -m32 and linking without? I'd expect that to fail more
miserably.
That said, what we are doing with the sanitizers is similar to what we are
doing with debug stmts, if compilation is with -f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83359
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 12 09:21:35 2017
New Revision: 255575
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255575&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/83359
* tree-cfg.h (fold_loop_intern
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83379
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83388
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83388
>
> --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Compilation with -m32 and linking without?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83378
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-debug |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83377
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31914
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |FIXED
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83388
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #3)
> > That said, what we are doing with the sanitizers is similar to what we are
> > doing with debug stmts, if compilation is with -flto -g and linking without
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83380
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83390
Bug ID: 83390
Summary: valgrind error in lra_eliminate_regs_1
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83389
Bug ID: 83389
Summary: std::tie generates sub-optimal code when used to
compare POD fields
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83389
--- Comment #1 from Luca Stoppa ---
Created attachment 42846
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42846&action=edit
Generated assembler file
The code was compiled with
g++ -std=c++17 -O3 -S sample.cpp
g++ --version:
g++ (GCC) 7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83363
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 12 09:51:05 2017
New Revision: 255576
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255576&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/83363
PR rtl-optimization/83364
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83364
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 12 09:51:05 2017
New Revision: 255576
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255576&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/83363
PR rtl-optimization/83364
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83390
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83363
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83364
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83385
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Nothing obvious (well, the .optimized result is obviously broken). ISL
transforms
[scheduler] original ast:
{
for (int c0 = 0; c0 <= 1; c0 += 1) {
S_9(c0);
for (int c1 = 0; c1 <= 1; c1 += 1) {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83359
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83390
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #1)
> Note that you need to use valgrind trunk for gcc trunk to avoid false
> positives.
> See: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=387766.
I thought I was us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81889
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> Fixed on trunk sofar
Works great here (without any side effects, apparently). Thanks for fixing!
> not sure if this particular fix should be backp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83178
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83388
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83388
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83391
Bug ID: 83391
Summary: [8 Regression] error: definition in block 9 does not
dominate use in block 8
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82679
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Dec 12 10:38:09 2017
New Revision: 255577
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255577&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/82679
* c-decl.c (grokdeclarator): Check declspecs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82679
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83391
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83391
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
s/I reload ICEs/I get reload ICEs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82801
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83383
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83383
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Cleaned up testcase for testsuite, in C (so gcc.c-torture/execute/):
/* PR tree-optimization/83383 */
unsigned long long int a = 16ULL;
unsigned char b = 195;
unsigned long long int c = ~0ULL;
unsigned char
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83392
Bug ID: 83392
Summary: FAIL: c-c++-common/ubsan/ptr-overflow-sanitization-1.c
scan-tree-dump-times
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83390
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #2)
> I'll have a build of latest valgrind, latest gcc and report back in a few
> hours.
Still going wrong.
$ egrep "^==[0-9]|^Config" mk.out
...
Configuring in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83391
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79393
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Which DR has been filed for this and has there been any progress on it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80942
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
If this bug is fixed, then it should no longer be necessary to explicitly
specify -Wno-overlength-strings when building GCC itself. I could submit a
patch removing it from the relevant configure script(s).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83385
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Dec 12 12:15:38 2017
New Revision: 255579
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255579&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-12 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/83385
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83385
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80837
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80884
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83388
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80884
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Any progress?
Sorry, this is after interchange on my list. Hopefully I can get to it soon.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83389
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |c++
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83391
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Started with r255566, likely related to the allowing of debug stmts before
labels.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83391
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Before that commit, we had:
[local count: 357878150]:
# iftmp.0_19 = PHI
:
# DEBUG i => iftmp.0_19
# DEBUG e => 0
if (iftmp.0_19 != 0)
before dom2 and dom2 turned it into:
[local count: 2759046
disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-255576-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nographite-amd64
Thread model: posix
gcc version 8.0.0 20171212 (experimental) (GCC)
Tested revisions:
trunk r255576 - FAIL
trunk r255386 - FAIL
.combine shows:
insn_cost 4 for 8: r111:SI=[`d']
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83393
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83389
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83390
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #3)
> Still going wrong.
If I remove the -funroll-loops the problem goes away.
$ egrep "^==[0-9]|^Config" mk.out
...
Configuring in x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libquadma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83393
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #0)
> ... even though insn 16 output (r108) should be used insn 20; ...
s/insn 16/insn 14/
Later, there is:
Trying 18 -> 20:
18: r116:SI=0
20: {r108:HI=r108:HI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83391
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The bb is split in:
#0 gsi_split_seq_before (i=0x7fffd940, pnew_seq=0x7fffd918) at
../../gcc/gimple-iterator.c:415
#1 0x011fc89d in gimple_split_block (bb=, stmt=0x0) at ../../gcc/tree-cfg.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83389
--- Comment #4 from Luca Stoppa ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> This isn't a libstdc++ bug. std::tie is doing exactly what it's meant to do,
> which is generate a tuple of references, so of course it's not the same as
> compar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67220
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
The last patch is at
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=patch;h=5bf0d3520f9c646452b16805fcb47cc1804dd514
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83391
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83327
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42817|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83393
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83391
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> The bb is split in:
> #0 gsi_split_seq_before (i=0x7fffd940, pnew_seq=0x7fffd918) at
> ../../gcc/gimple-iterator.c:415
> #1 0x011fc89d in gimpl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83387
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83394
Bug ID: 83394
Summary: [8 Regression] always_inline vs. noinline no longer
diagnosed
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83394
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83387
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Huber ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #1)
> Is the insn you're dying with contain FP operands? I know the backend for
> 64-bit PowerPC assumes/requires 64-bit FP hardware is available and since
> you're
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83395
Bug ID: 83395
Summary: is_invocable_r fails for cv-qualified void return type
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58142
Martin Stumpf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||der-martin-stumpf at web dot de
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83387
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Sebastian Huber from comment #2)
> Is -msoft-float supported on 64-bit PowerPC? It is not important for us. I
> just copied the 32-bit multilibs without much thought.
It is used by the linux ker
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83322
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 42851
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42851&action=edit
gcc8-pr83322.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83387
--- Comment #4 from Sebastian Huber ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #3)
> (In reply to Sebastian Huber from comment #2)
> > Is -msoft-float supported on 64-bit PowerPC? It is not important for us. I
> > just copied the 32-bit multilib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64867
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|egallager at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83394
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think it would be better to get rid of the last_decl stuff and instead
diagnose what hasn't been diagnosed yet and duplicate_decl time when processing
attributes there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83387
--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Sebastian Huber from comment #4)
> If I remove the -msoft-float, the two example source files compile
> (-mno-altivec seems to cause no harm).
Well the first question, is do you really need to u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81914
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Predictions for bb 2
DS theory heuristics: 98.0%
combined heuristics: 98.0%
negative return heuristics of edge 2->4: 2.0%
Predictions for bb 3
1 edges in bb 3 predicted to even probabilities
Predictions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83387
--- Comment #6 from Sebastian Huber ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #5)
> (In reply to Sebastian Huber from comment #4)
> > If I remove the -msoft-float, the two example source files compile
> > (-mno-altivec seems to cause no harm).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81914
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Oops, it is most likely the PRED_NEGATIVE_RETURN stuff instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
Bug ID: 83396
Summary: [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement
Frontiers
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #2 from David Edelsohn ---
Created attachment 42852
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42852&action=edit
preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81914
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Another testcase, which has even higher prediction of not returning -1:
int
cmp (int a, int b)
{
if (a < b)
return -1;
if (a > b)
return 1;
return 0;
}
In the #c0 case, we have in the IL:
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83394
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, wrong-code
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81933
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Somewhat reduced testcase:
namespace std {
template struct __decay_and_strip { typedef _Tp __type; };
template struct enable_if { typedef int type; };
template struct _Head_base {
constexpr _Head_base(_H
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83395
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83381
--- Comment #3 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I checked and I was running against r255539. I will retry with current trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #3 from David Edelsohn ---
Created attachment 42853
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42853&action=edit
aix configuration file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #4 from David Edelsohn ---
Created attachment 42854
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42854&action=edit
AIX auto-host.h build file
1 - 100 of 196 matches
Mail list logo
