https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87067
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87076
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 87067 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87076
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
On x86_64 the actual -march switch isn't serialized but it is decomposed into
individual -mFEATURE switches by the driver which are serialized.
That is, if you make sure that
int __attribute__((target("arc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87085
Bug ID: 87085
Summary: with -march=i386, gcc should not generate code
including endbr instruction
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87072
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||56456
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87073
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #2)
> (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)
> > I wonder if it's related to pr87059.
>
> No, not related.
>
> Reproduced with a stage1 compiler just with --dis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87074
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87075
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87077
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87078
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87081
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87084
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87065
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
It's combines known_cond:
Breakpoint 6, known_cond (x=0x76a65198, cond=EQ, reg=0x76a3fa20,
val=0x76a47930) at /space/rguenther/src/gcc-sccvn/gcc/combine.c:9468
9468 enum rtx_code code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87085
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=86993
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87073
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Fri Aug 24 08:06:06 2018
New Revision: 263828
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263828&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 87073/bootstrap
* wide-int-range.cc (wide_int_range_di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87073
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87086
Bug ID: 87086
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in canonize from wide-int.cc when
building SPEC2000 254.gap
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87086
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
--- Comment #8 from Aldy Hernandez ---
On 08/23/2018 04:08 PM, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
>
> --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
> The MIN_EXPR code predates my change -- r255898 just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87086
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
--- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #7)
> So the fix is presumably to change len3 to
>
> len3 = fold_convert_loc (loc, ssizetype, arg3);
>
> Given the difference between sizetype and ssizetype is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87065
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- gcc/combine.c.jj2018-08-24 08:55:25.0 +0200
+++ gcc/combine.c 2018-08-24 11:00:01.974006314 +0200
@@ -6495,7 +6495,7 @@ simplify_if_then_else (rtx x)
pc_rtx, pc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87050
--- Comment #4 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Sure, I can chip in a little, though I'm no html expert. Do you have some
branch somewhere where you're working, or?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
--- Comment #4 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Well, that is, ahem, interesting. So it seems that OACC does the vector_length
reduction incorrectly; the correct result is obviously 10.0 and not 9.0 which
then causes the failure.
I'm a bit lost why that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87041
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That change just improved the constant folding.
In C++ which has done that constant folding forever we don't warn, because
check_format_arguments is called with the non-folded original arguments
(though,
bef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87087
Bug ID: 87087
Summary: Optimization hangs up and consumes over 15Gb of memory
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86989
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Aug 24 10:49:27 2018
New Revision: 263829
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263829&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Check that the base of a TOCREL is the TOC (PR86989)
There
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87088
Bug ID: 87088
Summary: Attached program doesn't finish compiling and linking
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87088
--- Comment #1 from miltonkbenjamin ---
Thanks for your support
Best,
Milt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87028
--- Comment #6 from anon63 ---
Dear Martin,
Thank you for all these details.
Well, re-reading what I wrote in Comment 0, I think I should explain what I
meant by "Lots of codebases can't be compiled with -Werror flag now.".
Since the gcc-7 ->
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87087
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87087
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Summary|[8/9 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87088
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87086
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #1)
> Duplicate.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 87059 ***
Are you sure this is a dup? PR 87059 seems to be about strncmp whereas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87089
Bug ID: 87089
Summary: [9 regression] tree check: expected class 'type', have
'declaration' (namespace_decl) in type_with_linkage_p,
at ipa-utils.h
Product: gcc
V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87088
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87090
Bug ID: 87090
Summary: Constexpr variables in functions are not optimized
correctly
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87088
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
FWIW this was changed by r247222
2017-04-25 Bernd Edlinger
* c-common.c (c_type_hasher, type_hash_table): Remove.
(c_common_get_alias_set): Remove unreachable code.
* c-opts.c (c_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79342
--- Comment #10 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Aug 24 11:28:40 2018
New Revision: 263831
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263831&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
DWARF: Call set_indirect_string on DW_MACINFO_start_file
Since -g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87085
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86989
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Fixed on trunk; backports pending.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66970
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to felix from comment #7)
> I made the feature closely mimic The Other Compiler's behaviour: only
> function built-ins are recognised. This includes generic functions like
> __builtin_add_overflo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87039
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think this shows a pretty major bug caused by the early dwarf changes - it
happens too early.
When OpenMP/OpenACC etc. does move_sese_region_to_fn, it duplicates the BLOCK
which is on the boundary and shoul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87087
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87077
--- Comment #3 from trashyankes at wp dot pl ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Can you attach the source please? These stupid Web 2.0 sites do not allow
> to save it to a file.
Code:
```
#include
#include
struct alignas(32)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87039
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Actually, I think this got broken with PR78363 r244892.
Before that the early_global_decl hooks are only called on the functions when
all the functions are lowered and thus the BLOCKs moved.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87087
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
... and started with r257441.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87091
Bug ID: 87091
Summary: Malformed fix-it hint for missing header
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87089
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cesar at codesourcery dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87091
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Looks a lot like the issue I fixed in r263606.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51180
trashyankes at wp dot pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87091
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87089
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Treating the missing else cost as 0 cost isn't right either, it is ok to
> accept some small cost, otherwise we wouldn't do the if conversion ever with
> miss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87092
Bug ID: 87092
Summary: [9 Regression] internal compiler error: Segmentation
fault
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80093
trashyankes at wp dot pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #8)
> Well, original_costs is already initialized with COSTS_N_INSNS (2),
> accounting for test and branch that would be removed. So it's not too bad:
> in pr78120.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87077
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87080
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Summary|ice in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87092
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Monakov ---
Scaling costs by edge probabilities would also solve this issue, perhaps in a
cleaner way.
(to be clear: if speed_p, instead of taking the weird faux-minimum, add to
original_cost the linear combination
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86973
--- Comment #4 from Michael Matz ---
FWIW, the testcase is broken since it can be compiled, namely since
the two attributes ms_abi and sysv_abi are accepted, which is r137525 from
2008. Only broken with -mno-accumulate-outgoing-args of course.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87093
Bug ID: 87093
Summary: is_constructible (__is_constructible() instrinsic)
explicitly instantiates conversion member function of
source
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68222
--- Comment #4 from Tony E Lewis ---
Yes - Godbolt's GCC trunk is now showing an error where I'd expect within the
original repro code.
Great stuff. Thanks very much for your work on this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
cesar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cesar at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
--- Comment #11 from Michael_S ---
Sorry for intervening, but IMHO a new __builtin is long overdue.
__builtin
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #8)
> > Well, original_costs is already initia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87075
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
Joey Ye changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joey.ye at arm dot com
--- Comment #36 from Jo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82967
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
Candidate patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-08/msg01542.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87074
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87074
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87073
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87086
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez ---
My bad. This is a duplicate but of pr87073, which is now fixed on mainline.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 87073 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86953
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Depends
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
--- Comment #12 from Aldy Hernandez ---
BTW, this is reproducible with an x86-64 cross by forcing the generation of
cmpstrnsi with -mcpu=cell and the following patch:
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h
index 9ea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64le-linux |
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
This bug al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
--- Comment #14 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13)
> This bug also happens on x86-64.
Would you happen to have a preprocessed testcase on x86-64?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
--- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #12)
> (It really irks me that the PPC backend has backend behavior that depends on
> what assembler (or cross assembler) is available at configure time. It
> m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86942
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Aug 24 15:48:43 2018
New Revision: 263836
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263836&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67012
PR c++/86942
* decl.c (grokdeclara
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67012
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67012
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Aug 24 15:48:43 2018
New Revision: 263836
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263836&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67012
PR c++/86942
* decl.c (grokdeclara
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86942
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86942
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87028
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
--- Comment #16 from Aldy Hernandez ---
On 08/24/2018 11:41 AM, segher at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
>
> --- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool ---
> (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87094
Bug ID: 87094
Summary: Suboptimal accounting for stack growth in inlining
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87093
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
--- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu ---
On x86-64:
[hjl@gnu-cfl-1 gcc]$ cat x.c
int a, b;
void
c(void) {
if (b)
b = a / b;
}
[hjl@gnu-cfl-1 gcc]$ ./xgcc -B./ -O3 -funroll-loops -ffast-math -fwrapv -S x.c
during GIMPLE pass: evrp
x.c: In functio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
--- Comment #18 from Aldy Hernandez ---
BTW, the suggest patch in comment 10 causes an x86-64 regression on
gcc.dg/attr-nonstring-3.c because of some incompatibility with ssizetype and
sizetype. I believe it's related to this:
https://gcc.gnu.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
--- Comment #19 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #17)
> On x86-64:
>
> [hjl@gnu-cfl-1 gcc]$ cat x.c
> int a, b;
>
> void
> c(void) {
> if (b)
> b = a / b;
> }
> [hjl@gnu-cfl-1 gcc]$ ./xgcc -B./ -O3 -funroll-loops
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87073
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87092
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 87073 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
--- Comment #20 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #18)
> BTW, the suggest patch in comment 10 causes an x86-64 regression on
> gcc.dg/attr-nonstring-3.c because of some incompatibility with ssizetype and
> sizetype.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30812
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87092
--- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Aug 24 16:58:27 2018
New Revision: 263837
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263837&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add a testcase for PR middle-end/87092
PR middle-end/87092
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
