https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89893
--- Comment #34 from Martin Liška ---
> It seems your solution works. But it doesn't work if I add
> "-fno-strict-aliasing" through 'export CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -O3
> -fno-strict-aliasing..." export CXXFLAGS="$CXXFLAGS -O3
> -fno-strict-aliasing..." .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90015
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #42 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I filed an APPLE bug report:
https://bugreport.apple.com/web/?problemID=49727047
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90023
Bug ID: 90023
Summary: The coverage of a label is incorrect when it is after
a return statement and followed by a blank statement
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46108
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46108&action=edit
Reduced test-case #0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46109
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46109&action=edit
Reduced test-case #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90018
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90023
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
I bisected GCC 4.9.x branch and it started with r215059, which is a backport of
3 patches. I reverted changes in:
patching file gcc/recog.c
patching file gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c
patching file gcc/tree-vect-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64965
Rasmus Villemoes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90010
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #55
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90021
--- Comment #2 from bin cheng ---
We have {{0, +, 1}_6, +, 1}_4 in this case, and _6 is an outer loop of
loop_nest. Function add_multivariate_self_dist was intentionally skipped in
PR89725 patch, but control flow gets to it because
1) In analy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89900
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #16 from Wilco ---
(In reply to kugan from comment #15)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #11)
> > There is also something odd with the way the loop iterates, this doesn't
> > look right:
> >
> > whilelo p0.s, x3, x4
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90010
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #43 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 46110
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46110&action=edit
Proof-of-principle path
Does this work for you?
- my local testing says it generates the right wrapped include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90018
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90018
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
> Martin, if you can help with a testcase that would be great (in case you
> have a working setup / methology to track this down). Otherwise I'll of
> course see to do that myself.
I'll do it for you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90019
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90021
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #17 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #16)
> (In reply to kugan from comment #15)
> > (In reply to Wilco from comment #11)
> > > There is also something odd with the way the loop iterates, this doesn't
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89998
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 9 10:26:13 2019
New Revision: 270224
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270224&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/89998
* gimple-ssa-sprintf.c (try_sub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90011
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 9 10:27:14 2019
New Revision: 270225
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270225&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR translation/90011
* ipa-devirt.c (compare_virtual_table
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89794
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Guess with PR89475 fix this will be latent, unless one disables ccp.
> Anyway, to me this looks like a backend bug. The function is leaf, but for
> some stran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90024
Bug ID: 90024
Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] ICE on AArch32 NEON mov with TImode
constant.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-cod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90024
Matthew Malcomson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90025
Bug ID: 90025
Summary: [9 Regression] botan2 miscompilation on s390x-linux
since r268957
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90025
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90018
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88809
Peter Cordes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter at cordes dot ca
--- Comment #4 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90025
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46112
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46112&action=edit
gcc9-pr90025.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #18 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to kugan from comment #12)
> (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #10)
> > (In reply to kugan from comment #9)
> > > Created attachment 46040 [details]
> > > patch
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
So looking at one issue I can see is code-hoisting hoisting
MEM[(struct window *)window_6(D) + -5B].contents across a call that might
not return. This can only happen for calls we can alias-disambiguate
aga
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #44 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #43)
> Created attachment 46110 [details]
> Proof-of-principle path
>
> Does this work for you?
> - my local testing says it generates the right wrapped include file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89998
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 regression] ICE: |[7/8 regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90024
--- Comment #2 from Matthew Malcomson ---
Author: matmal01
Date: Tue Apr 9 11:39:59 2019
New Revision: 270226
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270226&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Hi there,
The "*neon_mov" patterns for 128 bit sized quantities us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
/* { dg-do run } */
/* { dg-require-weak "" } */
void __attribute__((noinline,noclone))
check (int i)
{
if (i == 0)
__builtin_exit (0);
}
int i;
extern int x __attribute__((weak));
int main(int argc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> I bisected GCC 4.9.x branch and it started with r215059, which is a backport
> of 3 patches. I reverted changes in:
> patching file gcc/recog.c
> patching file g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90010
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #45 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #44)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #43)
> > Created attachment 46110 [details]
> > Proof-of-principle path
> >
> > Does this work for you?
> > - my local tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #46 from Erik Schnetter ---
The patch does not include the generated files. You need to run "genfixes" in
the "fixincludes" directory after applying the patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
For the RTL issue there's
compute_hash_table_work (struct gcse_hash_table_d *table)
{
...
/* First pass over the instructions records information used to
determine when registers and memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90024
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90010
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46113
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46113&action=edit
gcc9-pr90010.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90010
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |diagnostic
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90018
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> I've just tested that on -march=skylake-avx512:
> model name: Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8164 CPU @ 2.00GHz
>
> r265451 works for me, but I had to increase a stack l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #47 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Erik Schnetter from comment #46)
> The patch does not include the generated files. You need to run "genfixes"
> in the "fixincludes" directory after applying the patch.
the one I put above has th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #48 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Perhaps that redefinition of _Atomic should be guarded with
#if (__STDC_VERSION__ < 201112L) || defined(__cplusplus)
or so, so that for C -std=c11 you still get _Atomic?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #49 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #48)
> Perhaps that redefinition of _Atomic should be guarded with
> #if (__STDC_VERSION__ < 201112L) || defined(__cplusplus)
> or so, so that for C -std=c11 you still g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89998
--- Comment #10 from gandalf at winds dot org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Fixed for trunk. As a workaround I'd suggest using a correct prototype or
> -fno-builtin-sprintf if you intentionally use a different one.
Thanks. Us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90011
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 9 13:19:16 2019
New Revision: 270229
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270229&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR translation/90011
* typeck2.c (check_narrowing): Remove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90018
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
>
> Please use GCC 8 branch, not trunk. The problem only shows up on GCC 8
> branch.
I can confirm that with r265453 I see:
*** Miscompare of cam4_validate.txt; for details see
/home/mliska/Programming
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90018
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90017
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-debug
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90011
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #34 from Jakub Jelinek ---
@@ -30877,6 +30883,11 @@ arm_valid_target_attribute_rec (tree args, struct
gcc_options *opts)
else if (!strncmp (q, "arm", 3))
opts->x_target_flags &= ~MASK_THUMB;
+ else if (!strncmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89972
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90018
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
However, '--size=test' helps here, fails quickly. With the revision, there 2
files are difference: mapz_module.fppized.o.s and optics_lib.o.s.
I suspect the later one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89972
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Looking at
struct S { long a[0] __attribute__ ((aligned (32))); };
long double u;
void baz (struct S *);
void bar (long double x, struct S y, long double z)
{
u = x + z;
baz (&y);
}
this doesn't ICE, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90007
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
We have a pseudo:SI<-hardreg:SI assignment followed by
pseudo:DF<-float(pseudo:SI) conversion, and we substitute the latter through
the former, creating a pseudo:DF<-float(hardreg:SI) insn that fails in r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90018
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Looking at the rev. and the context I figured the original caller was
added for a case that can no longer happen (SAME_DR_STMT set, that
can never happen since we rewrote interleaving chain detection for GC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89972
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Looking at
> struct S { long a[0] __attribute__ ((aligned (32))); };
> long double u;
> void baz (struct S *);
> void bar (long double x, struct S y, long double z)
> {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90005
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64867
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||87403
Summary|warning for pas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89972
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> > So, do we want to ignore the TYPE_EMPTY_P arguments even for argument
> > alignment computations (both at the caller and callee)?
>
> We should ask it in x86-64 psAB
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #43 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
The problem with your suggestions Segher is that we'd have to do them for every
target which defines insns with a zero_extract destination and that's been the
well understood way to handle this stuff for ov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89972
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
That'd be much appreciated, I was puzzled as to what we should do when I first
took a look at this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89972
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polace
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89965
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
According to my bisection, this is not reproduceable on the trunk starting with
r266862.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89794
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90012
--- Comment #2 from Roland Illig ---
Thank you for changing this so quickly. Will your change make it into the next
translation round before the 9.1 release? That would be good because it would
save be quite some work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85400
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90026
Bug ID: 90026
Summary: [8/9 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed (error:
missing barrier after block 2)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90012
--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Roland Illig from comment #2)
> Thank you for changing this so quickly. Will your change make it into the
> next translation round before the 9.1 release? That would be good because it
> would save
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #50 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #48)
> Perhaps that redefinition of _Atomic should be guarded with
> #if (__STDC_VERSION__ < 201112L) || defined(__cplusplus)
> or so, so that for C -std=c11 you still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89965
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, we have:
(insn 41 40 42 6 (parallel [
(set (reg/v:DI 101 [ i ])
(lshiftrt:DI (reg/v:DI 118 [ i ])
(const_int 7 [0x7])))
(clobber (reg:CC 17 flag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89794
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw ---
There seems to be more to this than initially thought. Another insn is in
play.
(insn 12 10 14 2 (set (reg:SI 129)
(bswap:SI (subreg:SI (reg:DI 127 [ i ]) 4))) "/tmp/test3.c":10:7 331
{*arm_rev}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90027
Bug ID: 90027
Summary: misalign variable access by piece load/store even when
define STRICT_ALIGNMENT nonzero
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
+-
《 开》 （
企 ） 《禾兑》
《具 》 （
业 ） 《栗》
电：李 生，136—6075— 4190，
业 q：157— 533— 2698
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86504
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86530
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88492
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88259
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88915
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tnfchris at gcc dot
gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65930
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90028
Bug ID: 90028
Summary: On Intel Skylake (-march=native) generated avx512
instruction can be wrong
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90028
--- Comment #1 from Ferruh YIGIT ---
Created attachment 46115
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46115&action=edit
19.05-rc1 -mno-avx512f gcc build on skylake
The build is done with changing the lib/librte_kni/Makefile as follo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90028
--- Comment #2 from Ferruh YIGIT ---
While preparing the support files for this report, via --save-temps, recognized
that generated .s file output is a little different, and correct assuming the
suspicion on source of the failure was right:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90029
Bug ID: 90029
Summary: optimizing local exceptions, or are they an observable
side effect
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90028
--- Comment #3 from Ferruh YIGIT ---
Created attachment 46116
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46116&action=edit
.i file generated by "--save-temps" param
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90028
--- Comment #4 from Ferruh YIGIT ---
Created attachment 46117
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46117&action=edit
.s file generated by "--save-temps" param
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90030
Bug ID: 90030
Summary: Fortran OpenACC subarray data alignment
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90008
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Apr 9 18:50:39 2019
New Revision: 270236
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270236&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90008 remove unused capture from variant rel ops
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90028
--- Comment #5 from Ferruh YIGIT ---
Tested with latest gcc [1], same output.
[1] Compiled from source:
gcc (GCC) 9.0.1 20190409 (experimental)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53294
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||federico.kircheis at gmail dot
com
--- C
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
