https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71991
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78988
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
David will you be interested in the PR?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78987
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
David will you be interested in the PR?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87776
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Nov 2 07:53:48 2018
New Revision: 265739
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265739&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-02 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/87776
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87766
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83352
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
It's first canonicalized to
[local count: 1073741824]:
_4 = ABS_EXPR ;
_2 = __builtin_pow (_4, 3.125e-2);
and then expanded again to
[local count: 1073741824]:
_4 = ABS_EXPR ;
powroot_5 = __
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87827
--- Comment #2 from ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ibuclaw
Date: Fri Nov 2 08:29:50 2018
New Revision: 265742
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265742&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix libgphobos.spec in the wrong place with
--enable-version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83353
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
So asin(sin(a)) would be a no-brainer but sin(asin(a)) needs to handle a being
outside of [-1,1].
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83348
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Well, as said in the comment there's room for improvements.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87837
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Just have to repeat that I very much dislike TYPE_OVERFLOW_SANITIZED being
sprinkled all over the place... just instrument before folding things?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87837
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is unfortunately too hard, because there are just too many places where
the FEs can construct these.
That said, having one macro like TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED that would combine
that and !TYPE_OVERFLOW_SA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87859
Bug ID: 87859
Summary: [8/9 Regression] store-merging miscompilation of mesa
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87859
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87837
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> That is unfortunately too hard, because there are just too many places where
> the FEs can construct these.
> That said, having one macro like TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87836
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||sparc
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87837
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87776
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87860
Bug ID: 87860
Summary: [9 Regression] libsanitizer build fails on
sparc64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87860
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87843
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
If we have less MEM_REFs then we probably strip them because we think they
reference equal types.
I think I already told you that given that MEM_REFs use pointer types
to carry alignment info _those_ may no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87848
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87849
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87860
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://reviews.llvm.org/D5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81486
Ted Lyngmo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ted at lyncon dot se
--- Comment #3 from Te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
--- Comment #27 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, on trunk for the small testcase the main peak memory user is
Bitmaps LeakPeak
Times N searches Search iter Type
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87851
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87852
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87854
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||msp430, avr
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87857
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The reason you get an error is that the expression isn't constant, because it
needs to emit the runtime diagnostics. Just fix the bug and get away with
that? 1U<<31 will do.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87855
--- Comment #2 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
This fixes the problem. Thank you so much for your effort!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87855
--- Comment #3 from Ville Voutilainen ---
The fix is not quite right. I'll do a more intrusive one. Stay tuned.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87855
--- Comment #4 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
Heh ok, you tricked me ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70380
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Both Clang and EDG also reject the same two statements.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87678
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Another similar problem:
__m128
bar (__m128 x)
{
return x + _mm_set1_ps (2.3f);
}
gcc -O2 -msse2 creates following _combine dump:
--cut here--
Trying 6 -> 7:
6: r85:V4SF=[`*.LC0']
REG_EQUAL const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87861
Bug ID: 87861
Summary: [9 regression] ICE in
output_constructor_regular_field, at varasm.c:5165
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build, i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87852
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87857
--- Comment #5 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> The reason you get an error is that the expression isn't constant, because
> it needs to emit the runtime diagnostics. Just fix the bug and get away
> with that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87852
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87859
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87843
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
> If we have less MEM_REFs then we probably strip them because we think they
> reference equal types.
>
> I think I already told you that given that MEM_REFs use pointer types
> to carry alignment info _those_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87852
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
And fwprop before that questionable code does
/* We used to have a def reaching a use that is _before_ the def,
with the def not dominating the use even though the use and def
are in the same ba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14557
--- Comment #23 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to felix from comment #21)
> > va_list ap2;
> > va_copy(ap2, ap);
>
> > and then use &ap2, this always works.
>
> > the proposed macros are both broken and unnecessary.
>
> That's not eq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87843
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #7)
> > If we have less MEM_REFs then we probably strip them because we think they
> > reference equal types.
> >
> > I think I already told you that given that MEM_REF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87859
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87861
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87860
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87843
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 44946
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44946&action=edit
reproducer
I am attaching the preprocessed file and will be away till 2pm.
What seems to be wrong is that we opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25844
--- Comment #21 from simon at pushface dot org ---
This bug was fixed in GCC 5 (5.2.0, x86_64-apple-darwin15) and is still fixed
up to GCC 9.0.0 20180927.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87843
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
I can only see that v->locs might be affected by fld because the type of the
FIELD_DECL changes but the (alias) type of *p_11 remains the same. Thus
we have get_alias_set (ptr-to-incomplete) and get_alias_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87843
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
That said - we used to give all pointer types the same alias-set but you
somehow convinced yourself that not doing that is safe. Even when considering
pointer-to-complete and pointer-to-incomplete types.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87862
Bug ID: 87862
Summary: Different behavior with -O2 with template
specialization of virtual member function
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87843
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so in GCC 8 at least pointer-to-incomplete type gets the alias set of void
* and that conflicts with any other pointer. So that works.
Not sure what breaks here now...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87843
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
So the alias machinery disambiguates them at
static bool
indirect_refs_may_alias_p (tree ref1 ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED, tree base1,
poly_int64 offset1, poly_int64 max_size1,
...
/* Do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87843
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
The following does _not_ fix it (but an assert that the alias-set is -1 does
trigger). We probably have to adjust all types the record parent is embedded
into as well for which there's no easy way.
Well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87863
Bug ID: 87863
Summary: c-c++-common/gomp/gridify-{2,3}.c ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87843
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
But the following fixes it:
diff --git a/gcc/alias.c b/gcc/alias.c
index 7963ece291a..4c88c0980d3 100644
--- a/gcc/alias.c
+++ b/gcc/alias.c
@@ -1235,14 +1235,14 @@ record_component_aliases (tree type)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87859
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 44948
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44948&action=edit
gcc9-pr87859.patch
WIP patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87862
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87863
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Summary|c-c++-common/gom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87853
--- Comment #5 from Terry Guo ---
Hi folks,
What about a fix like below? I tested with bootstrap and regression test, there
is no problem.
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/emmintrin.h b/gcc/config/i386/emmintrin.h
index 7a6ff80..3c1f04b 100644
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87862
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The relevant quote from the standard is:
If a template, a member template or a member of a class template is explicitly
specialized then that specialization shall be declared before the first use of
that s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87864
Bug ID: 87864
Summary: libdruntime doesn't link with /bin/ld before Solaris
11.4
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87864
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87865
Bug ID: 87865
Summary: gdc doesn't build unless assert is marked noreturn
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82501
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.0 |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87865
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87866
Bug ID: 87866
Summary: gdc fails to compile minimal test
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87866
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87861
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87852
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Eric, you added partitions_for_undefined_values and IIRC that was just narrow
> scope enough to fix a specific issue but not generally address shortcomings
> within RTL?
Yes, it's only enabled for SUBREG_P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87853
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Terry Guo from comment #5)
> What about a fix like below? I tested with bootstrap and regression test,
> there is no problem.
LGTM.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87861
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
It's unlikely that this is caused by my latest patch implementing P0846R0, that
only triggers with C++2a.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70831
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81878
--- Comment #42 from Tamar Christina ---
Author: tnfchris
Date: Fri Nov 2 15:27:30 2018
New Revision: 265749
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265749&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix mingw-w64 Ada native bootstrap (PR81878).
Due to the changes in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87678
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It tries twice, first just the substitution, and then that modified with
the REG_EQUAL. You know a mem is not often valid in the resulting insn,
but combine doesn't, and that is not the same thing as no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87861
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-09/msg01052.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87678
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
> It tries twice, first just the substitution, and then that modified with
> the REG_EQUAL. You know a mem is not often valid in the resulting insn,
> but combi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87678
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Here is a bit simpler testcase:
--cut here--
typedef float __v4sf __attribute__((__vector_size__ (16)));
__v4sf
foo (__v4sf x)
{
return x + (__v4sf){ 2.3f, 2.3f, 2.3f, 2.3f };
}
--cut here--
"cc1 -O2" on x
Hi Enrique,
Flu season is here, and the office is the perfect place for those germs to
spread like wildfire. The risks are nothing to sneeze at: according to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the flu alone costs U.S.
companies $10.4 billion per year.
Bringing Vanguard Cleaning Syste
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87865
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
This is part of the dmd frontend which as no interaction with gcc. So
gcc_unreachable() can't be used here.
Sounds like some independent compatibility layer is required here instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87678
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Hi Uros,
It's not clear to me what you would have liked it to do instead?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87864
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
Is there another way to get a section in earlier versions of Solaris?
The alternative is to support a vagary of methods in order to determine loaded
modules at runtime.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87867
Bug ID: 87867
Summary: ICE on virtual destructor (-mlong-calls
-ffunction-sections) on arm-none-eabi
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87865
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
> This is part of the dmd frontend which as no interaction with gcc. So
> gcc_unreachable() can't be used here.
I see. However, if upstream dmc w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87864
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
> Is there another way to get a section in earlier versions of Solaris?
What I initially did in LLVM's compiler-rt (which prompted the addition
of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83173
--- Comment #11 from Mike Gulick ---
(In reply to Mike Gulick from comment #10)
> In hopes of seeing some progress on this bug, I will rebase the patches on
> the latest gcc master branch and re-test. I will also refactor the main
> patch to sep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87868
Bug ID: 87868
Summary: testsuite/c-c++-common/pr60101.c with -O3 and ubsan
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16166
--- Comment #14 from Eric Gallager ---
This came up on the gcc-help mailing list here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2018-11/msg3.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87869
Bug ID: 87869
Summary: Unrolled loop leads to excessive code bloat with -Os
on ARC EM.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87869
--- Comment #1 from Nick Bowler ---
Er, I can't count, the unrolled loop is only ~four times the size.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87865
--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2)
> > --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
> > This is part of the dmd frontend which as no interaction with gcc. So
> > gcc_unreachable() can't be use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47030
--- Comment #6 from marco atzeri ---
Created attachment 44949
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44949&action=edit
updated patch for 7.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47030
--- Comment #7 from marco atzeri ---
I am trying to update the draft patch of Tobias to gcc-7.3.0
the current gcc on cygwin.
The attached patch builds but does not solve the problem of
!GCC$ attributes dllexport :: /mydata/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83656
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Revised patch that should resolve the autoconf concerns:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg00120.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87678
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #7)
> It's not clear to me what you would have liked it to do instead?
The loads from constant memory pools always have REG_EQUAL of a relevant
constant attached t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46020
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri Nov 2 20:20:43 2018
New Revision: 265757
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265757&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-02 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/46020
* decl.c (verify_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87870
Bug ID: 87870
Summary: ppc64le generates poor code when loading constants
into TImode vars
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87678
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Ah. So you want this optimisation (which is currently done by LRA) to be done
by combine as well; it's not that the resulting assembler code for this
testcase
is worse than what you'd like to see. And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871
Bug ID: 87871
Summary: [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87872
Bug ID: 87872
Summary: debug list::splice should not call _M_transfer_from_if
on self-splices
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
