https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87560
Bug ID: 87560
Summary: ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:3892
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87554
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
I'm reducing that ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Any progress on that please?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87553
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #6)
> > --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
> [...]
> >> Sorry, I've been doing too many things at once and not been paying close
> >> enough attention
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87557
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87560
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87554
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87557
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Yes, but I forgot to move the file to newly created
./gcc/testsuite/g++.target/i386/
I'll do that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87550
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87151
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Tue Oct 9 07:46:48 2018
New Revision: 264949
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264949&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-10-09 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/87151
* trans-array.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80931
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Tue Oct 9 07:46:48 2018
New Revision: 264949
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264949&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-10-09 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/87151
* trans-array.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
--- Comment #43 from Richard Biener ---
We're now down to
tree PTA : 3.92 ( 16%) 0.12 ( 36%) 4.02 ( 16%)
12445 kB ( 2%)
tree CCP : 7.43 ( 30%) 0.02 ( 6%) 7.44 ( 29%)
646 k
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55735
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #7)
> Ah sorry, I think I moved around the block data and then it wasn't valid
> Fortran anymore. I think, both the block data and the subroutine are
> external to the ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55735
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #7)
> Ah sorry, I think I moved around the block data and then it wasn't valid
> Fortran anymore. I think, both the block data and the subroutine are
> external to the ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87561
Bug ID: 87561
Summary: [9 Regression] 416.gamess is slower by ~10% starting
from r264866 with -Ofast
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87562
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Summary|ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87562
Bug ID: 87562
Summary: ICE in in linemap_position_for_line_and_column, at
libcpp/line-map.c:848
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86740
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87561
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55735
--- Comment #10 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Interestingly, nagfor rejects this code with the message "Inconsistent
definitions of COMMON block FOO in program-units $block and BAR". Both ifort
and pgfortran compile the code, and the program issues 'ABC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87410
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
--- Comment #44 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #43)
> This makes CCP the main
> offender again but as said the rectification would probably mean pulling
> back the SSA SCC discovery code from SCCVN and use that i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86576
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58787
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86576
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> AFAICT the test in comment 2 has been fixed between revisions r264451
> (2018-09-20) and r264486 (2018-09-21), may be r264485 (pr87359).
Unfortunately, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58787
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I can confirm that this ICEs on Linux, but not on MACOSX.
I get the ICE with MACOSX:
...
Error: Expecting END SUBROUTINE statement at (1)
f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault: 11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58787
--- Comment #12 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #11)
> > I can confirm that this ICEs on Linux, but not on MACOSX.
>
> I get the ICE with MACOSX:
>
> ...
> Error: Expecting END SUBROUTINE statement at (1)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87559
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Any gcc bugs seem to be fixed in current trunk. As a single testcase:
extern "C" int puts(const char*);
constexpr char top_doc[] = "";
void f1() {
constexpr auto& doc = top_doc;
[](int) { puts(doc);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87553
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
[...]
> You can use gcov-dump -l to dump content of the files. However, it's not
> problem as the file exists. The warning should be only shown whe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58787
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> (null):0: confused by earlier errors, bailing out
Your compiler is configured with --enable-checking=release (either explicitly
or because your are using a release). The above message is the equiva
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58787
--- Comment #14 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #13)
> > (null):0: confused by earlier errors, bailing out
>
> Your compiler is configured with --enable-checking=release (either
> explicitly or because your
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87559
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> But GCC 8 gets them all right
8.1 crashes with an ICE (which makes bisection hard), 8.2 gets them right.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87559
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yeah. I think it is r261121 aka PR85761 that fixed the ICE.
Wonder if it would be useful to add the #c1 testcase into testsuite or if
lambda-const8.C is close enough that it covers it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87563
Bug ID: 87563
Summary: [9 regression ] ICE with -march=armv8-a+sve
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87563
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87563
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64-none-elf
Target Milesto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87559
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes. Started to ICE with r253266 and was fixed by r261121.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87547
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87562
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
linemap_position_for_line_and_column(line_maps*, line_map_ordinary const*,
unsigned int, unsigned int) at libcpp/line-map.c:848
is:
linemap_assert (ORDINARY_MAP_STARTING_LINE_NUMBER (ord_map) <= line);
I w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87553
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #8)
> > --- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
> [...]
> > You can use gcov-dump -l to dump content of the files. However, it's not
> > problem as the fil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84191
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85870
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85870
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85870
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #4)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> > Can't reproduce with GCC 7.3.0 on x86_64:
> >
> > + gcc-7 -O2 -flto -c test_1.i -o test_1.o
> > + gcc-7 -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85114
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Can please anybody from Fotran community dig into this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87563
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87564
Bug ID: 87564
Summary: Missing -Wuninitialized with -O0
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85114
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85870
--- Comment #6 from sudi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Still fails for me on aarch64-none-linux-gnu-gcc and aarch64-none-elf-gcc on
trunk and gcc-8.2.1 with the same error
Reading object files: test_1.o test_2.olto1: internal compiler error: in
linemap_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85870
--- Comment #7 from sudi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It is not failing on x86_64 trunk anymore but with 8.0.1
+ TARGET=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
+ GCC_INSTALL=/work/x86-trunk/bld
+ GCC=/work/x86-trunk/bld/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc-8.0.1
+ LTO1=/work/x86-t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87544
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Do we want something like this as well? (and for malloc_allocator too)
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/ext/new_allocator.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/ext/new_allocator.h
@@ -130,7 +130,13 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85870
--- Comment #8 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> (In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> > > Can't reproduce with GCC 7.3.0 on x86_64:
> > >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57832
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87561
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so on haswell I see (- is bad, + is good):
-0x2342ca0 _40 + _45 1 times scalar_stmt costs 12 in body
+0x2342ca0 _40 + _45 1 times scalar_stmt costs 4 in body
so a simple add changes cost from 4 to 12 w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87551
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> --- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger ---
>> Rainer, can you try this?
>
> Looks good so far: an i386-pc-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87544
--- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> Do we want something like this as well? (and for malloc_allocator too)
I think so. Changing allocator_traits as LWG seems likely to agree won't help
much until
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87564
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 87564, which changed state.
Bug 87564 Summary: Missing -Wuninitialized with -O0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87564
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77698
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
--- Comment #45 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Oct 9 11:43:46 2018
New Revision: 264956
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264956&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-10-09 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/63155
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85870
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Now confirmed!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85114
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|WAIT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85870
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87468
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87561
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85870
--- Comment #11 from sudi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes I remember spending a while to get it to reduce further. But it needs a big
constructor to fail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85890
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85574
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Richi is it fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87561
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85574
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85574
>
> --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
> Richi is it fixed?
No.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83409
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79768
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77698
--- Comment #7 from Pat Haugen ---
I also see the loop now being aligned when I apply your patch.
srdi 10,10,2
mtctr 10
.p2align 4,,15
.L6:
ld 9,0(11)
ld 8,0(4)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82793
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83256
--- Comment #2 from Peter Maydell ---
Created attachment 44817
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44817&action=edit
repro for similar bug, apparently broken up to 8.3 but fixed in trunk?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85890
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And fixed on trunk by r258116
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83256
Peter Maydell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter.maydell at linaro dot org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87565
Bug ID: 87565
Summary: suboptimal memory-indirect tailcalls on arm
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85153
Peter Maydell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter.maydell at linaro dot org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87566
Bug ID: 87566
Summary: ICE with class(*) and select
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49263
--- Comment #30 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #29)
>
> So maybe it's worth splitting up into sub-issues?
It'd be better to, yes. But at the moment I don't have a lot of time to go
through all the cases and factor o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86968
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86815
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-reduction
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87544
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I can make these changes to libstdc++, but why is the compiler warning anyway?
It says:
In function ‘T* my_allocator::allocate(std::size_t, const void*) [with T =
int]’,
inlined from ‘void std::vecto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87544
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
> At the same time, since the call malloc(SIZE_MAX) is guaranteed to fail, GCC
> could fold it to zero
But there is no call to malloc(SIZE_MAX), GCC is confused
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86968
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Happens at expand time. Diving in.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87565
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Not a good idea. Modern CPUs often don't predict such operations correctly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83256
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Unless someone can identify a commit that deliberately fixed the bug *and
added appropriate tests to the testsuite*, I'd strongly advise adding
tests to the testsuite before marking FIXED o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87565
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
PLT trampolines all end with 'ldr pc, [ip, xxx]!', so do all calls via PLT
suffer from poor branch prediction of such indirect jumps?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87544
--- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor ---
There is a call to malloc(SIZE_MAX - 15) in GIMPLE, as a result of the
conditional and I believe jump threading. Just after thread1 we see this in
the vrp1 dump:
[local count: 32272892]:
# _91 = PHI <_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87567
Bug ID: 87567
Summary: constexpr evaluation rejects call to non-constexpr
function
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86968
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87567
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87563
Renlin Li changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87566
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87568
Bug ID: 87568
Summary: Gfortran compile fails with bogus error message.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86968
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #7)
> (In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #6)
> > Happens at expand time. Diving in.
>
> There's a giant if in expand_expr_real_1 with the following
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86968
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #8)
> (In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #6)
> > > Happens at expand time. Diving in.
> >
> >
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
