https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90104
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90108
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90095
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90094
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90095
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Target Milestone|9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90095
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P1
Summary|[8/9 Regression] w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85164
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90059
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
> Definitions added in r270372. I made a couple of tweaks to the original patch
> so that only mcontext_t and ucontext_t are public in the module,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87042
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56049
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Apr 16 07:55:41 2019
New Revision: 270378
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270378&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-04-16 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/56049
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90059
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> --- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
>> Definitions added in r270372. I made a couple of tweaks to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56049
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90078
--- Comment #6 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> (In reply to bin cheng from comment #4)
> > In get_scaled_computation_cost_at, we have very big ratio between
> > bb_count/loop_count:
> >
> > (gdb) p data->current_l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90108
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #69 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #68)
> Created attachment 46176 [details]
> revised fixincludes patch.
>
> The patch attached include the generated files, and I'd be grateful if folks
> would test it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90078
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to bin cheng from comment #6)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> > (In reply to bin cheng from comment #4)
> > > In get_scaled_computation_cost_at, we have very big ratio between
> > > bb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90090
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 16 08:24:47 2019
New Revision: 270379
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270379&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/90090
* tree-ssa-math-opts.c (is_divi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90082
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 16 08:26:26 2019
New Revision: 270380
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270380&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/90082
* dce.c (can_delete_call): New f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #70 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #69)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #68)
> > Created attachment 46176 [details]
> > revised fixincludes patch.
> >
> > The patch attached include the generated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #71 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #70)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #69)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #68)
> Does this mean, "when building LLVM on OSX 10.14.2 using GCC as the
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90096
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 16 08:40:58 2019
New Revision: 270381
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270381&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/90096
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_target_string):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90109
Bug ID: 90109
Summary: gstabs flag generates wrong entry for long on x86_64
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #72 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #71)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #70)
> > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #69)
> > > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #68)
>
> > Does this mean
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90090
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90082
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90088
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> We have two related tunables, X86_TUNE_OPT_AGU and
> X86_TUNE_AVOID_LEA_FOR_ADDR.
>
> Probably related is that most uarchs have extra cost for complex addressing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90110
Bug ID: 90110
Summary: [9 Regression] libgo fails to build against glibc 2.19
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90110
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90103
--- Comment #1 from Claudiu Zissulescu ---
Probably,this patch needs to be backported:
[ARC] Update fma expansions.
Accept at most a single constant for fma patterns.
gcc/
2018-03-21 Claudiu Zissulescu
* config/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65799
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90085
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90107
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88075
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90050
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90109
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90050
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Although if you link with -lstdc++fs then it should work OK, because the
incompatible std::filesystem symbols in libstdc++.so.6.0.26 won't be used.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90111
Bug ID: 90111
Summary: Placement of Fortran OpenACC 'routine' directive
inside 'specification-part'
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: open
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90112
Bug ID: 90112
Summary: internal procedure using module procedure instead of
"sibling" internal procedure
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89693
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90103
--- Comment #2 from Alexey Brodkin ---
Indeed, proposed back-port fixes that problem!
May we get it back-ported to 8.3.0 branch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86243
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89953
--- Comment #6 from rene.r...@fu-berlin.de ---
Here is the code snippet that triggers the ICE:
#include
#include
#include
int main()
{
std::vector v{0, 1, 2, 3, 4};
for (auto e : v | ranges::view::reverse)
{
std::cout << e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89953
--- Comment #7 from rene.r...@fu-berlin.de ---
Created attachment 46177
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46177&action=edit
preprocessed source file from gcc8 (no ICE)
This is the compressed but unreduced preprocessed source fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85164
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
I'd be happy to help out with any testing of any speculative patch
for this bug.
I am surprised that more than 64 bits of precision are required.
Would a data type like float or double do the job ? Less p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90001
--- Comment #5 from Roman Zhuykov ---
Retested patch separately, everything works.
Have found 2 more slow Fortran examples on (obsolete) spu platform and with
additional options like -O1/O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops
-ftrace
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89953
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90113
Bug ID: 90113
Summary: Useless torture mode for gfortran.dg tests
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90102
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90003
--- Comment #4 from rene.r...@fu-berlin.de ---
Hi gcc-team,
is there any news about this issue?
Let me know, if you need more information.
Kind regards
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90102
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> A DEBUG::debug vector
s/DEBUG::debug vector/DEBUG::vector/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83507
Roman Zhuykov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhroma at ispras dot ru
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #49 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #48)
> (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #47)
> > (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #43)
> > > does anybody know what is the Ada and/or D syntax for th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90102
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'm not sure if the original testcase is actually required to compile.
Implementations are allowed to add additional constructors, and they could take
an arbitrary type with a .clear() member.
But as a QoI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90114
Bug ID: 90114
Summary: Predetermined private levels for variables declared in
OpenACC accelerator routines
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyword
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
--- Comment #4 from Frederico Lamberti Pissarra ---
My suggestion is to do a simple jmp after .L8 label and test the condition
before sqrtss (or fsqrt, or sqrtsd...):
f:
pxor %xmm2,%xmm2
ucomiss %xmm0,%xmm2
ja .L8
sqrtss %xmm0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
--- Comment #5 from Frederico Lamberti Pissarra ---
CLANG 6 creates a similar code:
f:
xorps %xmm1,%xmm1
ucomiss %xmm1,%xmm0
jb .L8 # more intutive test...
sqrtss
ret
.L8:
jmp sqrtf@PLT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90115
Bug ID: 90115
Summary: OpenACC: predetermined private levels for variables
declared in blocks
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc, w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86438
--- Comment #12 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Tue Apr 16 12:44:46 2019
New Revision: 270388
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270388&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR86438] avoid too-long shift in test
The test fell back to long lon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89528
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Tue Apr 16 12:44:57 2019
New Revision: 270389
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270389&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR89528] reset debug uses of return value when dropping dead RTL call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90110
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
The pathnames suggest that this is the -m32 build.
Can you attach the file TARGET/32/libgo/math.gox?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89528
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90017
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva ---
I think it's more of a missing feature than a bug. I believe GDB folks already
know about this, though maybe not about this specific manifestation thereof.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82738
Bug 82738 depends on bug 89528, which changed state.
Bug 89528 Summary: Wrong debug info generated at -Og [gcc-trunk]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89528
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88790
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.marjamaki at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88790
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(Yup, worked).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90050
--- Comment #6 from Mihai Preda ---
OK, thanks.
So if on Ubuntu 19.04, the default compiler produces without errors/warnings,
from valid source code, an executable that crashes, that's programmer error?!
I understand the explanation, but there
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89983
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #73 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #68)
> Created attachment 46176 [details]
> revised fixincludes patch.
>
> The patch attached include the generated files, and I'd be grateful if folks
> would test it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90050
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
See https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-8/+bug/1824721 where I said:
"for now the short answer is "C++17 support in GCC 8 is experimental, the onus
is on you to link correctly"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #74 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #73)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #68)
> > Created attachment 46176 [details]
> > revised fixincludes patch.
>
> >
> > The patch attached include the genera
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86953
--- Comment #8 from Rémi Ducceschi ---
It seems to be fixed on the last version available on wandbox.org (gcc HEAD
9.0.1 201904): https://wandbox.org/permlink/Tu4T8jEXDDtDw0OS
Though it doesn't work on any other versions (8.3.0...).
Any chance t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90088
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
We should first add an LEA microbenchmark to
https://gitlab.com/x86-benchmarks/microbenchmark
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89953
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46092|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89953
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection,|ice-on-valid-code
|need
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65799
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||55004
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90003
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89953
--- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek ---
*** Bug 90003 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89953
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 65799, which changed state.
Bug 65799 Summary: Allows constexpr conversion from cv void * to other type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65799
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65799
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90080
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87748
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alex at grundis dot de
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90080
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89953
--- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek ---
Adjusted testcase that is compiled with GCC 8.3 without errors:
namespace a {
template struct d { static constexpr int f = c; };
template struct g;
template h i(int);
template auto ab() -> decltype(i(0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87748
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-10-25 00:00:00 |2019-4-16
Known to fail|9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90102
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
--- Comment #4 from Jona
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90102
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'll come back to this for GCC 10.
Slightly better (and not broken) patch:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/debug/vector
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/debug/vector
@@ -220,11 +220,11 @@ namespace __debug
~v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82891
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88809
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88809
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871
--- Comment #26 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #25)
> (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #24)
>> I don't know why r0 isn't in profitable_regs for pseudo 116.
>
> Profitable regs there contain also conflic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90116
Bug ID: 90116
Summary: Segmentation fault and what appears to be an
implementation error in gofrontend (parse.cc)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90116
--- Comment #1 from Moeketsi Raselimo <22374604 at sun dot ac.za> ---
Created attachment 46180
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46180&action=edit
gccgo-8.2 throws syntax error on this one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89953
--- Comment #14 from Marek Polacek ---
The problem is that here
24072 /* Instantiate a dynamic exception-specification. noexcept will be
24073 handled below. */
24074 if (tree raises = TYPE_RAISES_EXCEPTIONS (TREE_TYPE
(cod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84369
--- Comment #5 from pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: pthaugen
Date: Tue Apr 16 15:58:02 2019
New Revision: 270394
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270394&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/84369
* config/rs6000/power9.md:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #50 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #49)
> (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #48)
> > (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #47)
> > > (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #43)
> > > > doe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90105
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871
--- Comment #27 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #26)
> ;; a4(r117,l0) conflicts: a3(r112,l0)
> ;; total conflict hard regs:
> ;; conflict hard regs:
>
> ;; a5(r116,l0) conflicts: cp0:a0(r111)<->a4(r11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871
--- Comment #28 from Peter Bergner ---
Vlad, in looking at add_insn_allocno_copies(), it looks like it relies on
seeing REG_DEAD notes on whether to record a copy/shuffle that should be
handled. Shouldn't we instead be looking at whether the sou
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
