https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90017
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Qirun Zhang from comment #3)
> (In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #2)
> > This odd behavior is an artifact of the way GCC lays out the basic blocks,
> > and how GDB interprets the line nu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90026
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 12 07:27:25 2019
New Revision: 270304
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270304&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/90026
* cfgcleanup.c (try_optimize_cfg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89946
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 12 07:28:35 2019
New Revision: 270305
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270305&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/89946
* varasm.c (assemble_start_function): Don't use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90026
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Summary|[8/9 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89946
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] ICE in |[8 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90049
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|mips-elf|
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90053
Bug ID: 90053
Summary: [GCOV] A statement in while loop is wrongly marked as
not executed when they are within the if(setjmp())
statement
Product: gcc
Version: 8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52726
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 12 08:10:51 2019
New Revision: 270308
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270308&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/52726
* config/tilepro/tilepro.c (tilepro_print_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90047
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90049
--- Comment #5 from Tao Wang ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #4)
> This is not a bug:
>
> __asm__ __volatile__ ("addiu %0, %1, 0\t\n" "movn %0, %2, %3" :
> "=&r"(g_b.s_b.c):"r"(g_b.s_b.c),"r"(g_a.s_a.c),"r"((0 == g_a.s_a.a)));
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89933
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90049
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
For 16bit, there is a direct integral mode called hi. Basically inline-asm is
really exposing gcc internals out to the user in an interesting way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90053
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I think you need to use setjmp/longjmp, not the __builtin variants which have
special semantics.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89325
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90054
Bug ID: 90054
Summary: [GCOV] A call statement to the __builtin_snprintf
function is wrongly marked as not executed when it is
in a for loop
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88936
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 46146
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46146&action=edit
final fix
I am testing the following now which should do less work (but waste more UIDs
to be less conservati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88936
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Testcase using globals instead of parameters:
static int *p;
void bar(int cnt)
{
int i = 0;
if (cnt == 0)
{
p = &i;
bar (1);
if (i != 1)
__builtin_abort ();
}
else i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78640
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90054
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90055
Bug ID: 90055
Summary: Incorrect result with ffast-math + tree-vectorize
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89325
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90050
--- Comment #1 from Mihai Preda ---
I would hope somebody would take a look and reject this issues as invalid for
some reason, because otherwise it's rather severe.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90055
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90055
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89929
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90056
Bug ID: 90056
Summary: 548.exchange2_r regressions on AMD Zen
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #66 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #62)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #61)
> > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #60)
> > > PR 81797 was the relevant bug, which apparently is still prese
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90057
Bug ID: 90057
Summary: [GCOV] Wrong coverage for "if()" statement while it is
embedded with an empty "for(;0;)" loop statement
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90054
--- Comment #2 from Yibiao Yang ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Fixed on trunk with r263111. Not planning to backport.
Got it. Thanks a lot.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90053
--- Comment #2 from Yibiao Yang ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> I think you need to use setjmp/longjmp, not the __builtin variants which have
> special semantics.
Thanks for the suggestion. This is a reduced version of the tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89733
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
On the reduced testcase the warning is completely correct.
end_ is indeed uninitialized and then copied over in the Y constructor.
As the ~F destructor is not defined, GCC can't optimize away those stores
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #67 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #66)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #62)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #61)
> > > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #60)
> > > > PR 81797 wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90057
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88075
--- Comment #1 from Hannes Hauswedell ---
I see that this has changed for snapshots of GCC9 now, thanks a lot! Is this
something you can backport to to GCC7 and GCC8 that would really help
downstream projects to reduce needless use of MACROs!
Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
--- Comment #17 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kelvin
Date: Fri Apr 12 12:51:58 2019
New Revision: 270313
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270313&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-04-12 Kelvin Nilsen
PR targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89970
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Apr 12 12:54:00 2019
New Revision: 270314
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270314&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Handle multiple 'default' in target attribute (PR middle-end/89970).
2019
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89970
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87008
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85563
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #12)
> > Canonical example would be if (int_arg + 32U <= 64U) __builtin_unreachable
> > (),
>
> We don't quite seem to put a range on int_arg with this. We have one
> t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90058
Bug ID: 90058
Summary: False Positive in undefined-sanitizer only with GCC8
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90059
Bug ID: 90059
Summary: Solaris mcontext_t, ucontext_t declarations are wrong
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90059
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90059
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 46149
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46149&action=edit
Correct Solaris mcontext_t, ucontext_t declarations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90058
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90060
Bug ID: 90060
Summary: libphobos.druntime_shared/core/thread.d FAILs on
Solaris/SPARC
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90060
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89291
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90061
Bug ID: 90061
Summary: ARM cortex-M hard fault on 64 bit sized object store
to unaligned address
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90061
Michael James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||ARM Cortex M4
--- Comment #1 from Michae
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90062
Bug ID: 90062
Summary: SPARC stack alignment is wrong
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90062
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87008
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|9.0 |8.3.1
Summary|[8/9 Regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90063
Bug ID: 90063
Summary: druntime DSO first assertion fails on Solaris/SPARC
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90063
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85563
--- Comment #16 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> I certainly do see that.
Uh, indeed. I don't remember what I may have tested where we failed to set a
range, or maybe I just got confused, better ignore my comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90064
Bug ID: 90064
Summary: InSituRegion lacks SPARC64 support
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90064
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90065
Bug ID: 90065
Summary: Unaligned accesses on strict-alignment targets
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90065
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90061
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90066
Bug ID: 90066
Summary: [GCOV] function with inline attribute leading to
incorrect coverage for the "if" statement
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81435
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
I think it means that Andrew is a maintainer of the overall tree-ssa
infrastructure. AFAIK, he has not done any work on the strlen optimizations in
the file. Jakub is the author of the pass so he knows the m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87008
--- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse ---
The original testcase also shows a small, unrelated regression: DSE3 used to be
able to remove the initialization of sum to 0 when there were 2 statements
(setting each element to 0). Now that we vectorize so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90066
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90048
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Fortran OpenACC 'private' |Fortran OpenACC 'private'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90061
--- Comment #3 from Michael James ---
HiSimple tests do not seem to be failing here either regardless of
optimisation.They are all producing correct 32 bit load/stores that can be
non-aligned. I shall try and extract the code from my larger proje
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90067
Bug ID: 90067
Summary: Loop variables in Fortran 'do' statements within a
compute construct must be predetermined private
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #45 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #42)
> Thanks for the explanation.
> In that case, I think it would be better to just add
> __attribute__((target("general-regs-only")))
> to the
> #ifdef __AR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89953
--- Comment #4 from rene.r...@fu-berlin.de ---
Hi gcc-team,
is there any news about this issue? This ICE currently is always triggered when
using the range-v3 library using the 1.0-beta branch with concepts.
Let me know, if you need more inform
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89993
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871
--- Comment #18 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #15)
> Popping a5(r116,l0) -- assign reg 3
> Popping a3(r112,l0) -- assign reg 4
> Popping a2(r114,l0) -- assign reg 3
> Popping a0(r11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90055
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> Fixed on trunk with r250959 which is:
>
> 364bc5b93b76cf88(08 Aug 2017 14:09): [took: 2.844s] result: OK
> sum: 0.
> SVN revision: 250959
> Author: amker
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87603
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Apr 12 15:29:03 2019
New Revision: 270320
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270320&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/87603 - constexpr functions are no longer noexcept.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87603
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871
--- Comment #19 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #18)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #15)
> > Popping a5(r116,l0) -- assign reg 3
> > Popping a3(r112,l0) -- assign reg 4
> > Popping a2(r11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90041
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 12 16:12:49 2019
New Revision: 270321
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270321&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR translation/90041
* exgettext: Print MissingArgError, U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89965
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 12 16:20:21 2019
New Revision: 270323
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270323&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/89965
* dce.c: Include rtl-iter.h.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89965
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Summary|[8/9 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90041
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
%e/%n still not resolved and won't be until GCC 10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90068
Bug ID: 90068
Summary: Array Constructor Containing Function Call Leaks
Memory
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90070
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64le-gnu-linux,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90069
Bug ID: 90069
Summary: Polymorphic Return Type Memory Leak Without
Intermediate Variable
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90070
Bug ID: 90070
Summary: Add optimization for optimizing small integer values
by fp integral constant
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enha
../gcc/configure --enable-languages=c,c++ --enable-lto
--disable-bootstrap : (reconfigured) ../gcc/configure --enable-languages=c,c++
--enable-lto --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.1 20190412 (experimental) (GCC)
-COMMAND LINE USE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90072
Bug ID: 90072
Summary: Polymorphic Dispatch to Polymophic Return Type Memory
Leak
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90073
Bug ID: 90073
Summary: Very slow code for AVX2
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89288
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Apr 12 19:01:17 2019
New Revision: 270326
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270326&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/88383 - ICE calling __builtin_has_attribute on a reference
PR c/89288
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88383
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Apr 12 19:01:17 2019
New Revision: 270326
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270326&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/88383 - ICE calling __builtin_has_attribute on a reference
PR c/89288
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89797
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Apr 12 19:01:17 2019
New Revision: 270326
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270326&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/88383 - ICE calling __builtin_has_attribute on a reference
PR c/89288
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89798
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Apr 12 19:01:17 2019
New Revision: 270326
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270326&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/88383 - ICE calling __builtin_has_attribute on a reference
PR c/89288
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89288
Bug 89288 depends on bug 88383, which changed state.
Bug 88383 Summary: ICE calling _builtin_has_attribute with an expression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88383
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89798
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88383
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
LFE5519:
.size _Z1fRDv8_xRKS_S2_, .-_Z1fRDv8_xRKS_S2_
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 9.0.1 20190412 (experimental)"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
[hjl@gnu-cfl-1 gcc]$
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89797
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
> vmovaps %ymm1, (%rdi)
> vmovaps %ymm0, 32(%rdi)
> vzeroupper
> leave
> .cfi_def_cfa 7, 8
> ret
> .cfi_endproc
> .LFE5519:
> .size _Z1fRDv8_xRKS_S2_, .-_Z1fRDv8_xRKS_S2_
> .ident "GCC: (GNU) 9.0.1 2019
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89226
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rcc.dark at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90073
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90073
--- Comment #4 from Rodrigo ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> Fixed on
>
> https://gitlab.com/x86-gcc/wip/tree/usr/hjl/pr89226/master
>
> which will be submitted for GCC 10.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 8922
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
