https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88738
--- Comment #10 from drepper at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: drepper
Date: Wed Jan 16 08:01:22 2019
New Revision: 267964
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267964&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/88738 treat shared_ptr and unique_ptr more lik
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45438
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45438&action=edit
gcc9-pr88714-poc.patch
Proof of concept that fixes the short testcase.
One would need to write remaining non-t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88870
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88778
--- Comment #8 from 刘袋鼠 ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5)
> Please take a look at
>
> https://github.com/hjl-tools/gcc/commit/
> a56b4a49b2617a31365bdb9c44340695c31d56e8
How did you handle MOV reg(SCmode) < CONST_RTX(SCmode), I got
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88872
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88871
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Here is a more minimal example:
SUBROUTINE MNREAD(IFLGIN,IFLGUT)
IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H,O-Z)
PARAMETER (MNE=100 , MNI=50)
PARAMETER (MNIHL=MNI*(MNI+1)/2)
CHARACTER*10 CPN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88869
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #25 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks, I've reproduced the failure with the reduced testcase (aborts at -O2
but not at -O0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70696
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68887
Bug 68887 depends on bug 70696, which changed state.
Bug 70696 Summary: [Coarray] ICE on EVENT POST of host-associated EVENT_TYPE
coarray
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70696
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88873
Bug ID: 88873
Summary: missing vectorization for decomposed operations on a
vector type
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88874
Bug ID: 88874
Summary: support FMA on vector types
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88873
--- Comment #1 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
Note: with Clang, I get vectorized code as expected:
bar:# @bar
.cfi_startproc
# %bb.0:
vfmadd213pd %xmm2, %xmm1, %xmm0 # xmm0 = (xmm1 * xmm0) + xmm2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84995
--- Comment #18 from Дилян Палаузов ---
I will sum up the discussion so far on this and other tickets:
When one distributes source code software packages, the developers directly or
indirectly use AR to create static libraries, when the user wan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54408
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
__builtin_tg_sqrt () maybe. The difficulty is in expected behavior for
"standard" -O[0] when you supply vector arguments. I think the most
"convenient" thing to do is to say that __builtin_tg_sqrt () when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88869
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88873
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88872
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88870
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88871
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Summary|[9.0 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87015
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87015
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or if 7.3 works and 8.x doesn't and the two are ABI compatible (dunno about
mingw), then you could after you find problematic *.ii file try to bisect which
compiler revision changed the behavior and from ther
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88870
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
fast_dce gathers postorder and friends computing all_blocks before it
eventually does
if (global_changed)
{
/* Turn off the RUN_DCE flag to prevent recursive calls to
dc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88869
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88871
--- Comment #4 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Seems to work on the branches but I can't reproduce on trunk either.
That is strange. Did you try to compile several
times? Sometimes it comes, sometimes it doe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80762
--- Comment #14 from Tamar Christina ---
Hi Jonathan,
You're right, I was going off the results of a script but it doesn't seem to
have detected the change between FAIL -> UNSUPPORTED and left the state as
FAIL.
Sorry, I've manually checked it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88871
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80762
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88856
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88871
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88871
--- Comment #7 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #6)
> Could be a result of my recent commit, r267953. I'll take a look tonight.
That would be my guess, too,
I think it has to do with the array
descriptor together w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88871
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> My suspicion goes toward the fix for PR81849
Debugger shows
* thread #1, queue = 'com.apple.main-thread', stop reason = EXC_BAD_ACCESS
(code=EXC_I386_GPFLT)
frame #0: 0x0001000b2e1d f951`::
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88875
Bug ID: 88875
Summary: [8 regression] initializer_list and explicit ctor
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88875
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88875
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88876
Bug ID: 88876
Summary: [9 regression] ICE in propagate_pure_const
ipa-pure-const.c:1502
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
version 9.0.0 20190116 (experimental) [trunk revision 267961] (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88871
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88876
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88876
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88877
Bug ID: 88877
Summary: rs6000 emits signed extension for unsigned int
type(__floatunsidf).
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88869
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note the auto return type on foo isn't important, it ICEs even with void foo ()
{ C ([] {}); }
The ICE is in
26858 tparms = DECL_TEMPLATE_PARMS (fn_tmpl);
26859 /* If type is a member class te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88684
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.0 |---
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88684
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49330
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener ---
When considering the patch from comment#18 additional data is that only
95802 out of 636160 disambiguations that ultimately require base_alias_check
involve non-CONST_INT_P "other" operand. That is out of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86934
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88875
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell ---
That change looks suspicious in its own right -- it ends up mutating the
initializer during the adding of overload candidates.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88861
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Cool, thanks! Is the plan to simply not allow something that can throw to be
recognised as noop move?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88682
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 16 14:18:47 2019
New Revision: 267970
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267970&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/51628
PR target/88682
* c-c++-common/pr51628-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #60 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 16 14:18:47 2019
New Revision: 267970
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267970&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/51628
PR target/88682
* c-c++-common/pr51628
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86736
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so C++ has
else if ((DECL_NAME (decl) == NULL_TREE)
&& TREE_CODE (decl) == NAMESPACE_DECL)
dump_decl (cxx_pp, decl, TFF_PLAIN_IDENTIFIER | TFF_UNQUALIFIED_NAME);
and thus "copes" with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88682
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88875
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88847
--- Comment #2 from Tamar Christina ---
Using stack protector created an invalid addressing mode.
It changes SP-64 into SP-80, presumably due to it storing the canary value.
However 80 is not a multple of SVE_BYTE_MODE (32) so the instruction ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70682
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.0 |10.0
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88878
Bug ID: 88878
Summary: .debug_pubnames/types empty with -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88861
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5)
> Cool, thanks! Is the plan to simply not allow something that can throw to be
> recognised as noop move?
Candidate patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Without the #c11 patch (+ removal of the !INTEGRAL_TYPE_P special case from the
above committed change + fixing up ptrs_compare_unequal, or something
equivalent like the VRP change) I'm afraid there isn't mu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88879
Bug ID: 88879
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in sel_target_adjust_priority, at
sel-sched.c:3332
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
nguages=c,c++,fortran --enable-threads=posix --disable-nls
--enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-clocale=gnu --enable-checking=release
--disable-libstdcxx-pch --disable-libsanitizer --disable-libcilkrts
--without-isl --disable-werror
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.0 20190116 (experimental) [trunk r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88879
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||ia64
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88877
--- Comment #1 from Kamlesh Kumar ---
Following patch fixes the problem but would like to know the experts thought on
the below patch .
static machine_mode
-rs6000_promote_function_mode (const_tree type ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
+rs6000_promote_functio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88879
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
A little detail is that host GCC is GCC 4.1.2 which happened to miscompile GCC
itself for quite a while (but now somehow we're back).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88879
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88877
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88859
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88865
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86891
--- Comment #11 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Wed Jan 16 15:18:05 2019
New Revision: 267971
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267971&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
__builtin__overflow issues on AArch64 (redux)
Further investigatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88877
Umesh Kalappa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||umesh.kalappa0 at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
Bug ID: 0
Summary: Wrong code since r264897
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
Bug ID: 1
Summary: std::filesystem::status gives bad results on mingw32
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2019-1-16
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86891
--- Comment #12 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Wed Jan 16 15:22:08 2019
New Revision: 267972
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267972&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
__builtin__overflow issues on AArch64 (redux) (cont)
And the Chang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2
Bug ID: 2
Summary: gcc generates wrong debug information at -O1
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86736
--- Comment #13 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> OK, so C++ has
>
> else if ((DECL_NAME (decl) == NULL_TREE)
>&& TREE_CODE (decl) == NAMESPACE_DECL)
> dump_decl (cxx_pp, decl, TFF_PLAIN_IDENT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
That inline asm looks big and suspicious.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88877
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
"Values shorter than 32 bits are sign-extended or zero-extended, depending on
whether they are signed or unsigned." Source:
https://www.polyomino.org.uk/publications/2011/Power-Arch-32-bit-ABI-supp-1.0-Embedd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3
Bug ID: 3
Summary: [AArch64] gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.opt:
aarch64_branch_protection_string type
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The inline asm modifies the 0th and 1st operands. I think the inline asm is
broken .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88877
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88214
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Jan 16 15:37:33 2019
New Revision: 267974
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267974&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 88214] Check that an argument is a pointer
2019-01-16 Martin Jamb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88815
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
There can be three scenarios:
1) decltype is in a template and it has no dependent expressions -- PROBLEM
- we call finish_compound_literal from cp_parser_functional_cast
- processing_template_decl is 1, so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88214
--- Comment #12 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Jan 16 15:41:07 2019
New Revision: 267975
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267975&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 88214] Check that an argument is a pointer
2019-01-16 Martin Jamb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88815
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
(My proof-of-concept patch to deal with narrowing in decltype fixed this PR as
a result.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> The inline asm modifies the 0th and 1st operands. I think the inline asm is
> broken .
You are right, they are modified. Can you please help me how to fix the
ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88879
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abel at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88879
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Replace:
:
:
"r" (i),
"r" (n),
With:
:
"+r" (i),
"+r" (n),
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88815
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
And of course r265789 changed int{(p(), 0U)} from being dependent to being
non-dependent, so scenario 2) to scenario 1).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88684
--- Comment #11 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #10)
> > That said, I'm willing to ack it for GCC9 even then if upstream comes up
> > with something or if they don't care, eventually as a GCC only tweak.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78244
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Jan 16 15:58:34 2019
New Revision: 267976
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267976&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/78244 - narrowing conversion in template not detected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Upstream bug:
https://github.com/xianyi/OpenBLAS/issues/1964
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88877
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Sure, with 32-bit ABIs the registers are just 32 bits, for all intents and
purposes.
But we have -m64 here. (see also the "lwa" insn).
I think that because __floatunsidf has no prototype all its args a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88815
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #7 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81849
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 07:13:37AM +, juergen.reuter at desy dot de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81849
>
> --- Comment #8 from Jürgen Reuter ---
> I think this fix or something ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487
Tomáš Trnka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trnka at scm dot com
--- Comment #12 from
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
