https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
Bug ID: 88900
Summary: [9 Regression] 502.gcc_r SPEC benchmark miscompiles
with LTO and PGO
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs-bisect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88896
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The compiler optimizes the program with the assumption that undefined behavior
doesn't happen. So, e.g. it can remove loop condition if it proves that
undefined behavior happens before the last iteration and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88901
Bug ID: 88901
Summary: [9.0 Regression] ICE when using
-fsanitize=pointer-compare
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88898
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88892
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88901
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88901
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88489
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 18 09:14:18 2019
New Revision: 268063
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268063&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Reapply:
2018-12-15 Jakub Jelinek
PR target/88
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88734
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 18 09:15:36 2019
New Revision: 268064
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268064&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/88734
* config/arm/arm_neon.h: Fix #pragma GCC t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45455
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45455&action=edit
gcc9-pr88714.patch
I needed a temporary solution for our distro packages and with this patch
armv7hl passes pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85596
--- Comment #2 from Christophe Lyon ---
Author: clyon
Date: Fri Jan 18 09:20:41 2019
New Revision: 268065
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268065&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/85596 Add --with-multilib-list doc for aarch64
2019-01-18 Ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85596
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88734
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] AArch64's |[8 Regression] AArch64's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88902
Bug ID: 88902
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in
DFS::DFS_write_tree_body)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: GC, ice-on-v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52813
--- Comment #9 from Christophe Lyon ---
Author: clyon
Date: Fri Jan 18 09:57:41 2019
New Revision: 268066
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268066&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM][testsuite] follow-up to PR target/52813 and target/11807 fix.
201
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88902
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86214
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 18 10:07:27 2019
New Revision: 268067
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268067&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/86214
* tree-inline.h (struct copy_b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86214
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] Strongly |[8 Regression] Strongly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65873
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka ---
The underlying problem of inlining across target/optimization boundary not
being fully reliable is still there. I am not quite sure how we would want to
fix it w/o allowing to attach different optimization par
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86214
--- Comment #19 from Steinar H. Gunderson ---
Thanks for fixing. IIRC we just added a noinline attribute somewhere in the
code, so we already have a workaround.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88903
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88903
Bug ID: 88903
Summary: [8/9 Regression] wrong-code with SLP vectorized shift
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88901
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84842
--- Comment #16 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #15)
> Finally.
As of r267906 it doesn't ICE for me anymore, but
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dependency_36.f90 does:
% powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu-gfortran-9.0.0-alpha2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88901
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88903
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87835
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Created attachment 45457
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45457&action=edit
[WIP] libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/asyncwait-1.c debug
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #2)
> (In reply to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88904
Bug ID: 88904
Summary: Basic block incorrectly skipped in jump threading.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88904
--- Comment #1 from Matthew Malcomson ---
Created attachment 45458
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45458&action=edit
Problematic testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88794
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88903
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|8.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88902
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lkrupp at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88903
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Started with:
SVN revision: r224221
Author: rguenth
2015-06-08 Richard Biener
* tree-vect-stmts.c (vectorizable_load): Compute the pointer
adjustment for gaps at the end of a SLP load grou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88902
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|lto, needs-bisection|
Component|lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58200
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
RFA posted at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-01/msg00142.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
> What a surprise, started with r267883. I'll carry on bisection with --param
> inline-unit-growth=40.
Well, I guess I can't claim that this is not gcc bug but it is the
benchmark that is broken :)
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88903
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
In the end a mistake of the PR48616 fix (r172638).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88799
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Fri Jan 18 11:49:56 2019
New Revision: 268072
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268072&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/88799 Add +mp and +sec extensions to ARMv7-a
Most armv7-a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88902
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The problem is that gfc_add_decl_to_parent_function is called multiple times on
and thus for that VAR_DECL DECL_CHAIN
(decl) == decl (or in theory there could be longer loop, but any loop in
DECL_CHAIN is in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88902
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
r/i686-pc-linux-gnu
--build=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
--target=i686-pc-linux-gnu --with-ld=/usr/bin/i686-pc-linux-gnu-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/i686-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-268059-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-i686
Thread model:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88902
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
6_64-pc-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
--target=i686-pc-linux-gnu --with-ld=/usr/bin/i686-pc-linux-gnu-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/i686-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-268059-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-i686
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.0 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88905
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88904
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88850
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88907
Bug ID: 88907
Summary: Variadic template function deduction failure.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88908
Bug ID: 88908
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in tree check: expected tree that
contains ‘decl common’ structure, have ‘indirect_ref’
in gfc_conv_gfc_desc_to_cfi_desc, at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88908
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88757
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88334
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The library patches aren't in yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #61 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Jan 18 13:05:18 2019
New Revision: 268075
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268075&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
c-family: Update unaligned adress of packed member check
Check un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88664
--- Comment #8 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Jan 18 13:05:18 2019
New Revision: 268075
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268075&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
c-family: Update unaligned adress of packed member check
Check una
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88906
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88905
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88906
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka ---
I was getting either wrong code with 5+, or ICE with 4.9, or unknown compiler
argument with 4.8 -> I didn't find any gcc version where this was working.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88903
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 18 13:13:21 2019
New Revision: 268076
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268076&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-18 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/88903
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88903
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Summary|[7/8/9 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88664
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88846
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88799
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Fri Jan 18 13:25:37 2019
New Revision: 268077
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268077&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/88799 Add +mp and +sec extensions to ARMv7-a (gcc-8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88799
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88850
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88909
Bug ID: 88909
Summary: struct builtin_description doesn't support
ix86_isa_flags2
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88877
--- Comment #12 from Alan Modra ---
I suspect that the patch in comment #1 will break libcalls in other situations,
eg.
void f1 (int y)
{
extern double d;
d = y;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> Is this the same as PR 87214?
No, this one is probably related to RPO VN, I'm not finished with bisection.
And it also happens on non-avx512 targets.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88850
--- Comment #5 from Tamar Christina ---
So yeah it seems that there are three issues here:
1) We should probably have an r -> r alternative for *neon_mov.
2) The costs are now flipped from what they were before, for some reason the
VFP regs are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88587
--- Comment #14 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Jan 18 14:33:46 2019
New Revision: 268079
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268079&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Update PR middle-end/88587 tests
It is wrong to use -m32 in dg-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88910
Bug ID: 88910
Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr88414.c 1 blank line(s) in
output
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88899
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88911
Bug ID: 88911
Summary: No "did you mean" for incorrect -dumpspecs option
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88911
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> tmp$ g++14 q.cc -fdumpspecs
Oops, ignore the "14" there, it's just a shell alias I use, but I missed one
instance that I meant to change to "g++"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88912
Bug ID: 88912
Summary: Fortran compiler segfaults when pre-include file is
not found
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88912
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86926
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88912
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88912
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey ---
It is quite possible I am using the option incorrectly (though that should not
result in a segfault of course). Should some other flag be adding this to the
command line for me?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86926
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
But 8 still ICEs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88912
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
#define TARGET_F951_OPTIONS "%{!nostdinc:\
%:fortran-preinclude-file(-fpre-include= math-vector-fortran.h finclude%s/)}"
in config/gnu-user.h adds that if the file is found.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37845
Yibiao Yang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yangyibiao at nju dot edu.cn
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88913
Bug ID: 88913
Summary: [GCOV] Wrong frequencies when a global variable is in
a while expression in gcov
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88914
Bug ID: 88914
Summary: [GCOV] Wrong frequencies when unreachable statements
within the body of the for loop in gcov
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88915
Bug ID: 88915
Summary: Try smaller vectorisation factors in scalar fallback
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84481
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
And even my own measurements show 6% slowdown at both -O2 and -Ofast with
generic march/tuning against GCC 7 and now also 5% slowdown at -Ofast and
native march/tuning against GCC 8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86926
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Jan 18 16:42:57 2019
New Revision: 268080
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268080&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/86926
* g++.dg/cpp1z/constexpr-lambda23.C: New t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86926
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|mpolacek at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yes, I think so (just the vec_select arg?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88423
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88044
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88916
Bug ID: 88916
Summary: [x86] suboptimal code generated for integer
comparisons joined with boolean operators
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88890
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Jan 18 17:13:59 2019
New Revision: 268082
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268082&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libbacktrace/88890
* mmapio.c (backtrace_get_vie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, both the following patches should fix it IMHO, but no idea which one if any
is right.
With
--- gcc/config/rs6000/vsx.md.jj 2019-01-01 12:37:44.305529527 +0100
+++ gcc/config/rs6000/vsx.md2019-01-18 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And, if I disable that define_insn_and_split altogether (add 0 && to the
condition), the assembly change is:
--- reduction-3.s2 2019-01-18 18:19:42.184057246 +0100
+++ reduction-3.s4 2019-01-18 18:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88890
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80836
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'm unsure what exactly this report is about. The first half seems to be about
building GCC itself, and ensuring it can find the libs that GCC relies on,
right?
That's simple, just build the support libs i
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
