https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87099
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-* i?86-*-*
Priority|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87100
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 87101 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87101
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87104
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87104
--- Comment #7 from pipcet at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> x86 and x86_64 uses the same back-end so yes it does seem target secific.
I think it's not a target issue; we really want to be generating the same code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87104
--- Comment #8 from pipcet at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 44605
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44605&action=edit
patch to illustrate the issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87095
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87110
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87105
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87105
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
I've also had patches adding an early phiopt pass which would have solved the
CFG mess VRP creates.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87095
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87107
--- Comment #1 from Mateusz Loskot ---
There was similar bug reported to GCC 8.1, fixed in 8.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86320
However, I'm not seeing any improvement compiling the Frédéric's sample
gcc-is-long-minimum-and-sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87110
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87107
--- Comment #2 from Frédéric ---
Yes, I've seen that one and saw it was fixed before 8.2.0. I wasn't sure
actually if it was included in 8.2.0 as it was solved few weeks before 8.2.0
was out.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83193
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Aug 27 08:01:14 2018
New Revision: 263870
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263870&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Print default options selection for -march,-mcpu and -mtune for aarch64 (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87069
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Aug 27 08:01:54 2018
New Revision: 263871
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263871&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Do not read gcda files multiple times (PR gcov-profile/87069).
2018-08-27
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87069
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80528
jim at meyering dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jim at meyering dot net
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87065
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Aug 27 08:41:22 2018
New Revision: 263872
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263872&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/87065
* combine.c (simplify_if_then_el
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87065
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Aug 27 09:14:38 2018
New Revision: 263873
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263873&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/87065
* combine.c (simplify_if_then_e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57492
--- Comment #3 from Antony Polukhin ---
More examples:
double test_uns(unsigned u) {
return __builtin_pow(2, u);
}
double test_int(int i) {
return __builtin_pow(2, i);
}
Above two functions clang optimizes to exp2 and ldexp calls:
te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87104
--- Comment #9 from pipcet at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> So on GIMPLE the following are not canonicalized:
>
>[local count: 1073741825]:
> _1 = i_4(D) & 7;
> _8 = (int) i_4(D);
> if (_1 == 6)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87104
--- Comment #10 from pipcet at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 44606
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44606&action=edit
canonicalize to (A&B) == C
This canonicalizes to the worse code on x86_64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57492
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
--- Comment #4 from Richard Bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87095
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
With my very limited understanding of the inheritance and ABI, I think the
testcase is valid.
The problem is I believe in that if there are nearly empty virtual bases that
the ABI requires to reuse the virtu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87099
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87112
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87112
Bug ID: 87112
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in fold_binary_loc, at
fold-const.c:9334
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86927
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 44607
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44607&action=edit
patch
I am testing the attached.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86702
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Aug 27 12:17:54 2018
New Revision: 263877
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263877&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix probabilities for jump table (PR tree-optimization/86702).
2018-08-27
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78113
--- Comment #1 from Antony Polukhin ---
Note that this bug is related to Bug 86912. Fixing Bug 86912 should
automatically resolve this issue (but not vice versa).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86847
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Aug 27 12:21:11 2018
New Revision: 263879
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263879&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Improve switch code emission for a balanced tree (PR tree-optimization/868
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78113
--- Comment #2 from Antony Polukhin ---
Here's another example:
#include
struct A {};
struct B : A {};
struct C : A {};
struct D : A {};
struct E : A {};
struct X : A {};
struct visitor {
template
A& operator()(T& v) const noexcept {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86847
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 86702, which changed state.
Bug 86702 Summary: [9 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 400.perlbench, CPU2017
500.perlbench_r ~3% performance drop after r262247
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86702
What|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86702
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87113
Bug ID: 87113
Summary: ICE in adjust_temp_type at cp/constexpr.c:1205
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87113
--- Comment #1 from smehringer ---
Created attachment 44609
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44609&action=edit
workaround of error
Inserting a member variable into the struct prevents ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87112
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87099
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87085
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87071
--- Comment #9 from Sergey Kondakov ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #8)
> You should have mentioned you were using a custom-compiled Mesa, not the
> distribution package (both here and in the original report to Mesa project).
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85859
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87065
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86706
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] ICE in |[8 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86962
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Aug 27 13:21:28 2018
New Revision: 263882
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263882&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Sanopt: ignore params with DECL_HAS_VALUE_EXPR_P (PR sanitizer/86962).
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86121
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86962
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|8.2.0 |9.0
Summary|[9 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86010
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85817
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85805
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85699
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85583
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87113
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85512
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81685
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So fixed for 9+ so far?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81033
--- Comment #46 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Is this fixed for 9+ so far?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85817
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85583
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81033
--- Comment #47 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #46)
> Is this fixed for 9+ so far?
Yes, fixed on trunk .. leaving it open pending backports.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86962
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
My change is not on the 8 branch though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87091
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Mon Aug 27 13:46:32 2018
New Revision: 263884
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263884&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
diagnostics: show an extra line of context in line-insertion fix-it hin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87096
--- Comment #4 from Rich Felker ---
I'm aware, but that makes it an invalid transformation. To be valid, the
transformation must only be performed in cases where it's provably not
exceptional.
The same principle applies to all the pathological r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86962
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87091
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Mon Aug 27 14:02:05 2018
New Revision: 263885
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263885&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Less verbose fix-it hints for missing header files (PR 87091)
This pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87091
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
I've been using this PR to track various tweaks to how we print that fix-it
hint. As well as the bug fix referred to in comment #1, we've gone from:
In file included from
../x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85758
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Mon Aug 27 14:08:50 2018
New Revision: 263887
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263887&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
match.pd: add single-use check for (x & y) ^ y -> ~x & y (PR 85758)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84889
--- Comment #13 from David Malcolm ---
See also the various changes I've made in response to PR 87091.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86991
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Hmm. To me it looks like the assert that triggers:
if (orig_stmt_info)
gcc_assert (tmp == orig_stmt_info
|| REDUC_GROUP_FIRST_ELEMENT (tmp) == orig_stmt_info);
else
/* We change
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81685
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] FAIL:|[7/8 Regression] FAIL:
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86927
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Aug 27 14:17:03 2018
New Revision: 263888
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263888&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-08-27 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/86927
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86927
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Summary|[8/9 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85758
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87114
Bug ID: 87114
Summary: [9 regression] ICE in
gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/strnlen.c starting with
r263855
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86554
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
So on trunk the remaining offender now is code hoisting. We still do
value-numbering the same but correctly do _not_ use the values definition to
simplify
the comparison:
Value numbering stmt = ret_13 = PH
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87115
Bug ID: 87115
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/split-5.c execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85805
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It is fixed for 9 yes, and I am still pondering it for 8. I guess that's
not going to happen.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86865
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
We code-generate
[local count: 107374]:
xy = 0;
[local count: 107374]:
# graphite_IV.7_4 = PHI <0(2), graphite_IV.7_2(17)>
_21 = (int) graphite_IV.7_4;
_22 = ~_21;
sa = {};
...
[count:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39438
Alexander Amelkin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||groungccg at amelkin dot msk.ru
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87116
Bug ID: 87116
Summary: Incorrect result of
std::filesystem::path::lexically_normal() for more
than 3 dot-dot elements
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57492
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The example from comment#2 should require -funsafe-math-optimizations
(it's not correct if the pow call overflowed / underflowed but the ldexp
call doesn't).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87015
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Starke ---
I tried the version 8 branch snapshot from 2018-08-24 but the issue still
remains.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87112
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87114
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87117
Bug ID: 87117
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in
eliminate_dom_walker::eliminate_cleanup(bool) at
gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c:5431 since r263875
Product: gcc
Version: 9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53769
--- Comment #9 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #8)
> (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #7)
> > Furthermore, if I don't misread the standard, the expectation is that if an
> > implementation does not suppor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87117
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86993
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Aug 27 18:36:23 2018
New Revision: 263891
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263891&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/86993
* cp-tree.h (cxx_readonly_error): Add locatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87118
Bug ID: 87118
Summary: ICE in expand_expr_addr_expr_1, at expr.c:7862
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80283
--- Comment #25 from Michael_S ---
Just a reminder 16 months later:
x86-64 case - both 8.2 and trunk are as bad as they were.
ARM-Neon case - 8.2 appears to be worse (by 5%) than either 6.x or 7.x. I
didn't check trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87119
Bug ID: 87119
Summary: ice in set_value_range, at tree-vrp.c:289
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86010
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
I believe the fix is behind the regression reported in pr87011.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87112
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87112
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87116
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87116
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The problem is in this step of the normalisation algorithm:
- As long as any appear, remove a non-dot-dot filename immediately followed
by a directory-separator and a dot-dot filename, along with any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87120
Bug ID: 87120
Summary: gcc incorrectly accepts uniform-initializing bool
values from double
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63392
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Mon Aug 27 23:33:02 2018
New Revision: 263899
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263899&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
C++: fix-it hint for missing "typename" (PR c++/63392)
This patch adds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87112
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Aug 28 00:10:46 2018
New Revision: 263900
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263900&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/87112 - ICE in fold_binary_loc on strnlen of mixed in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87112
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
