https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85598
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 22 Nov 2018, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85598
>
> --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> While it might look too specialized, it ac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79996
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #4)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3)
> > Might want to revisit this now that -Wreturn-type is on by default
>
> The other Martin did that; cc-ing him
Sorr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88140
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 22 Nov 2018, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88140
>
> --- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
> I am testing:
> Index: tree-cfg.c
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88153
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88152
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Kretz ---
I just realized, the movmsk(x<0) => movmsk(x) transformation also applies to
float and double if -ffinite-math-only (i.e. no NaN, it's alright for inf) and
-fno-signed-zeros are active.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88156
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-w64-mingw32
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88149
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, the reduced testcase also fails before r265959. It looks like the issue
is either very old or got introduced with making the SLP tree a graph. Well,
let's see what tracking down the issue reveals.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88149
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> Btw, the reduced testcase also fails before r265959. It looks like the issue
> is either very old or got introduced with making the SLP tree a graph.
> Well, le
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88149
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> > Btw, the reduced testcase also fails before r265959. It looks like the
> > issue
> > is either very old or got in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88149
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
So it's a very old issue. We have
t.ii:54:24: note: node 0x3d755c0
t.ii:54:24: note: stmt 0 _32 = _12 unord _42 ? _34 : _42;
t.ii:54:24: note: stmt 1 _7 = _12 unord _42 ? _36 : _12;
t.ii:54:2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88149
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> > > Btw, the reduced testcase also fails before r265959. It looks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88163
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88163
Bug ID: 88163
Summary: [9 Regression] Maximum number of LRA assignment passes
is achieved (30) since r266385
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88149
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> > > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> > > > Btw, the re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88149
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88149
>
> --- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86614
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 23 09:12:16 2018
New Revision: 266403
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266403&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/86614
* gimple-ssa-warn-restrict.c (m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88164
Bug ID: 88164
Summary: Copy initialization of function argument not performed
inside lambda when the argument is a constexpr block
scope variable.
Product: gcc
Ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88163
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88157
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88159
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 88163 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88163
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
err
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 88157 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88157
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85598
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #11)
> You need to union the PHI argument ranges. The result you can intersect
> with the existing range info of the PHI result of course. You basically
> want t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88049
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2018-11-15 00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88081
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2018-11-19 00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87883
--- Comment #1 from Mihail Ionescu ---
Hi Jozef,
The issue is indeed there on trunk/gcc-8/gcc-7, but it is expected. It is
caused by the fact that the "arm_active_target.isa" bitmap is not initialised
by the time "init_reg_sets" is called. This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87501
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87264
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Jonathan, can you please take a look?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87264
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59067
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78878
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83545
Bug ID: 83545
Summary: ICE at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: in
smallest_mode_for_size, at stor-layout.c:355
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: WAITING
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87264
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> Jonathan, can you please take a look?
Seems like an optimizer bug, since Clang does much better on the same code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85598
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85598
>
> --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87264
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also|https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill |
|a/show_bug.cgi?id=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84170
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
See Also|https://gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88156
--- Comment #2 from xantares09 at hotmail dot com ---
Thanks for the quick reply.
On mingw __WCHAR_TYPE__ expands to short unsigned int:
$ x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc -E main.c
...
# 3 "main.cxx"
int string_hash(const short unsigned int* data) {
On
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88156
--- Comment #3 from xantares09 at hotmail dot com ---
Add yes, your C testcase leads to the same results.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87957
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85598
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #13)
> Note that dom after vrp1 should be able to adjust the value-ranges given
> it uses EVRP to track ranges... why doesn't that work?
>From what I see, dom ne
Hi Richard,
for the subjected issue , we found few suggestions to handle the issue like
1. be more conservative(target specific) and defining the peephole in
the md file to handle the patterns like add,shl and movl to "shlq and
movl"
2. like you mentioned in fwprop/combiner .
we would like to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88156
--- Comment #4 from xantares09 at hotmail dot com ---
I found this in stddef.h:
#ifndef __WCHAR_TYPE__
/* wchar_t is unsigned short for compatibility with MS runtime */
#define __WCHAR_TYPE__ unsigned short
#endif
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88156
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88156
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018, xantares09 at hotmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88156
>
> --- Comment #2 from xantares09 at hotmail dot com ---
> Thanks for the quick rep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78878
--- Comment #2 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Should be fixed, I guess, by:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67165
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77631
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 86614, which changed state.
Bug 86614 Summary: [9 Regression] duplicate -Warray-bounds for a strncpy call
with out-of-bounds offset
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86614
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86614
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62009
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28233
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85598
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85598
>
> --- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78878
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71958
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> Dansan: Can you please update Known to work?
Hi Martin,
I don't have bugzilla admin access. I'm actually missing my gcc git repo due
to a faulty backup when i c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82918
--- Comment #2 from Antony Polukhin ---
The example from above now produces optimal assembly on GCC-9 (trunk).
However, swapping first two lines still produces suboptimal result:
struct array {
int data[3];
};
void foo2(array& value, const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Tried again, this time on real hw (i9-7960X) and still can't reproduce, tried
current trunk, current 8 branch and r263070 (i.e. trunk from the time this PR
has been filed), none of this reproduces it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71958
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86828
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
> Which glibc are you using?
Same as reported in PR86735:
* Ubuntu 18.04, kernel 4.15.0
* Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-7980XE CPU
* glibc 2.27, binutils 2.30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87883
--- Comment #2 from Jozef Lawrynowicz ---
Created attachment 45074
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45074&action=edit
reg class checking patch
Hi Mihail,
Thanks for the info.
I fixed a bug for msp430-elf caused by REGNO_REG
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71958
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Santos ---
Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86832
--- Comment #11 from John Warburton ---
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 10:09 AM jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86832
>
> --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Can somebody please test this on mingw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82918
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Probably fixed by r255093
2017-11-23 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/23094
* tree-ssa-sccvn.c (vuse_ssa_val): Handle VN_TOP when we
come here from walking over backedges in t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88165
Bug ID: 88165
Summary: error: default member initializer for 'A::B::m'
required before the end of its enclosing class
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88156
xantares09 at hotmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88156
xantares09 at hotmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
--- Comment #8 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88165
--- Comment #1 from leanid ---
minim code:
---
struct A
{
struct B
{
double m = 0.;
};
void f(double d, const B &b = B{}) {}
};
int main()
{
}
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86229
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84711
--- Comment #20 from Tamar Christina ---
Author: tnfchris
Date: Fri Nov 23 12:20:20 2018
New Revision: 266405
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266405&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Arm: Fix subreg crash when FP16 and big-endian
The original issue c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86229
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://reviews.llvm.org/D5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84711
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88147
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Can't reduce that, not a surprise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59075
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Tom, do you know why the types might be shown differently on OS X and
GNU/Linux? (see comments 7 and 8).
Is that because of something different in the DWARF? Is that expected for OS X,
or is it a GCC bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59075
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|trivial |normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87308
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82109
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82109
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63873
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86828
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to janus from comment #13)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
> > Which glibc are you using?
>
> Same as reported in PR86735:
> * Ubuntu 18.04, kernel 4.15.0
> * Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-7980XE CPU
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88149
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88149
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Nov 23 12:53:39 2018
New Revision: 266406
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266406&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-23 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/88149
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88166
Bug ID: 88166
Summary: Inconsistent placement of cv-quals and ptr-declarator
in debuginfo
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88166
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oops, I simplified the testcase, but didn't update it in bugzilla before
submitting the form. The output above corresponds to this code:
struct any {
struct Arg { char c; };
template
struct Manag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59075
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> Tom, do you know why the types might be shown differently on OS X and
> GNU/Linux? (see comments 7 and 8).
>
> Is that because of something different in the DW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28233
--- Comment #11 from jphartmann at gmail dot com
---
I certainly haven't been waiting for a fix these last ten years, so by all
means close.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88167
Bug ID: 88167
Summary: [ARM] Function __builtin_return_address returns
invalid address
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87308
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jeff Garrett from comment #0)
> Note that both a1 and a2 are interpreted as holding type main::{lambda()#2},
> but a1 actually holds main::{lambda()#1}.
I can fix the regex to work for lambdas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88166
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85598
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, evrp_range_analyzer.enter (bb); even calls record_ranges_from_phis, but
that does nothing here, as only one of the preds is BB_VISITED and the other is
not when this is called, so we end up with has_unvi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87288
--- Comment #12 from Jö ---
Thanks a lot, I can confirm that this is fixed for us with the snapshot from
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/9-20181118/gcc-9-20181118.tar.xz. Still,
a fix for 8 would be appreciated, as that would let us re-ena
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87883
Mihail Ionescu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85598
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85598
>
> --- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> So, evrp_range_analyzer.enter (bb); even c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88168
Bug ID: 88168
Summary: -fno-jump-tables still generates jump table
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88168
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85598
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
record_ranges_from_incoming_edge does nothing here, pred_e =
single_pred_edge_ignoring_loop_edges (bb, false) is NULL.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46925
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88166
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88166
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87788
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87727
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87836
--- Comment #19 from Gary Mills ---
The reason that OI-SPARC uses the native assembler is the same as in Fiddler
on the Roof: tradition. Actually, there are some kernel files written in SPARC
assembly language. These only compile with the nativ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86952
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> > > H.J. I can write a patch for it. Do you expect more expensive costs when
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87304
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 194 matches
Mail list logo
