https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90110
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 46183
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46183&action=edit
32bit math.gox
Here it is. The 64bit one looks similar btw.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90110
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, I just checked and the build also fails with glibc 2.22 in the same way.
Oddly enough it only fails in a controlled environment but not on a development
machine with the same glibc I do regular testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90108
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43565
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
I think implementation-wise GCC outrules aliases that are not visible but takes
care of symbols resolving to NULL. For optimizations of actual accesses it can
assume the symbols do not resolve to NULL sinc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90037
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #8)
> So, if we change phionlycprop to look for other const/copy initializations
> that can be eliminated and run a pass between DOM and the erroneous-path
> isolatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90117
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90109
--- Comment #3 from nebiun at hotmail dot com ---
Sorry, but the bug is not related to the wrong dimension of a type, but to the
fact that the bitsize of the same type (K&R type: long, not long long or double
or a user type) is showed as 32 bit as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82542
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Nathan, what does it take to re-instantiate -fdump-lang-raw for the C frontend?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90121
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90118
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90117
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90124
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90121
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90120
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90119
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90109
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90125
Bug ID: 90125
Summary: Typo of AVX512 intrinsics
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: una
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90125
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
Last time I add runtime tests for -O2, didn't cover this part which use -O0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90124
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #51 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 17 08:30:44 2019
New Revision: 270404
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270404&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/89093
* config/arm/arm.c (arm_valid_target_attr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90124
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90067
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Wed Apr 17 08:34:10 2019
New Revision: 270405
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270405&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR90067, PR90114] Document Fortran OpenACC predetermined private st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90114
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Wed Apr 17 08:34:10 2019
New Revision: 270405
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270405&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR90067, PR90114] Document Fortran OpenACC predetermined private st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90048
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Wed Apr 17 08:34:20 2019
New Revision: 270406
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270406&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR90048] Fortran OpenACC 'private' clause rejected for predetermine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85164
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
For the 2 test-cases we reach these backtraces:
$ ./xgcc -B. test.c -O1
../../gcc/poly-int.h:1941:12: runtime error: negation of -9223372036854775808
cannot be represented in type 'long int'; cast to an unsig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90037
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Jeff posted this to PR 89819 instead of here:
Somewhat trimmed down testcase... Certainly easier to analyze...
typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
typedef unsigned long int uintmax_t;
struct group
{
char *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90126
Bug ID: 90126
Summary: gcc can not correctly deal with its own preprocessed
output
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89929
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
@Nikolay:
As discussed in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-04/msg00416.html email
thread, we reached the following consensus with H.J:
- As any AVX512 extensions (apart from AVX512F) can be enabled i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86368
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Justin Bassett from comment #7)
> and it won't extend to future standardized attributes.
That's a Good Thing. If I use a new standardized attribute like
[[no_unique_address]] I definitely want
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
JunMa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||JunMa at linux dot alibaba.com
--- Comment #7 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90127
Bug ID: 90127
Summary: Disable bugzilla [[wiki_links]] and don't confuse rNN
register names with rN svn revisions
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81135
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86964
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peadar at arista dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #57 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #56)
> Testcase from PR82177:
>
> #include
> #include
>
> void f(int*, int*);
>
> int main()
> {
> int a=0, y[1], x = 0;
> uintptr_t pi = (uintptr_t) &x;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #58 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #49)
> Related testcase from PR61502:
>
> #include
>
> int main()
> {
>int x, y = 1;
>int *volatile v;
>int *p;
>
>v = &y;
>p = v;
>if (p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88136
--- Comment #6 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Any chance of moving this warning out of -Wextra and re-considering adding it
there for GCC 10?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88136
--- Comment #7 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Innocent users are going to hit it: https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-75210
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90126
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't think this is a bug.
If you tell gcc that the preprocessed output is preprocessed output, then the
behaviour is consistent. So either:
g++ -E namespace_anonymous_1_min_ok.cpp > temp_namespace_anon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90126
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
tl;dr the preprocessor should only be used once. You're running it twice on the
same input.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90126
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #52 from Bernd Edlinger ---
I digged a bit, and found a D syntax for the target attribute,
it is a bit of a complication since D does not have a pre-processor,
but an empty target attribute does seem to be ignored without warnings.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81616
--- Comment #53 from Martin Jambor ---
I'd vote for marking this fixed (and asking anyone with other ideas what could
be improved in generic tuning to open a new bug).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17108
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Apr 17 09:45:57 2019
New Revision: 270407
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270407&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Improve the load/store-with-update patterns (PR17108)
Many
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #53 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #52)
> I digged a bit, and found a D syntax for the target attribute,
> it is a bit of a complication since D does not have a pre-processor,
> but an empty target att
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90125
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46186
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46186&action=edit
gcc9-pr90125.patch
Oops, you're right, thanks for noticing.
Here is a full patch including testcases that FAIL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #54 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #53)
> Realistically the register allocation issues are not going to get addressed
> this cycle nor are improvements to the overall handling of RMW insns in
> combine. So we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #59 from post+gcc at ralfj dot de ---
> With the C provenance proposal this example is undefined since 'a' is not
exposed (it's address is not converted to an integer).
However, from what I can tell, GCC's behavior does not change if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90120
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||claziss at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90125
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
L(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Created attachment 46186 [details]
> gcc9-pr90125.patch
>
> Oops, you're right, thanks for noticing.
> Here is a full patch including testcases that FAIL without
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90127
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90125
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90120
Claudiu Zissulescu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||claziss at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90127
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Would it be easy to only link for strings that look like WikiNames and not
identifiers in all lowercase like "noreturn"?
e.g. a regex like [[:upper:]][[:alnum:]]+
That way [[InstallingGCC]] and [[Debuggin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85164
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89929
--- Comment #16 from Nikolay Bogoychev ---
Created attachment 46187
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46187&action=edit
target("arch=foo") doesn't work
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #15)
> @Nikolay:
>
> As discussed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90120
--- Comment #3 from Claudiu Zissulescu ---
Added a patch to solve upper/lower issue:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-04/msg00696.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89929
--- Comment #17 from Martin Liška ---
>
> @Martin:
>
> Thank you for the detailed answer. This could work for now. I have a few
> questions about it:
>
> Wouldn't that create issues in the future if AMD decide to release avx512
> for their CPU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90128
Bug ID: 90128
Summary: 507.cactuBSSN_r is 9-11% slower at -Ofast and native
march/tuning on Zen CPUs
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79869
--- Comment #3 from Claudiu Zissulescu ---
DOC is string that shortly describes an machine dependent option. This string
is used to throw an warning/error when the underling option is not available
for a specific architecture, which can be arcem,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90128
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90128
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Ugh. Cactus is really ugly code :/ For one there's an invariant switch () in
the innermost loop, expanded to a binary tree (slightly different split point
GCC 8 vs. trunk), obviously unswitching cannot han
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89929
--- Comment #18 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #17)
> >
> > @Martin:
> >
> > Thank you for the detailed answer. This could work for now. I have a few
> > questions about it:
> >
> > Wouldn't that create issues in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90129
Bug ID: 90129
Summary: Wrong error: inlining failed in call to always_inline
‘_mm256_adds_epi16’: target specific option mismatch
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90128
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Direct graph link to branch comparison:
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=148.437.0&plot.1=59.437.0&plot.2=76.437.0&plot.3=33.437.0&;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90129
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
IIRC we have a duplicate for this (albeit with -msse2 vs. none)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90128
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #54 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Hmm, I see. What I am trying to accomplish is, put the target
attribute on every function that calls directly or in-directly
to CONTINUE_UNWINDING. And do that only for ARM.
For gdc_personality it is str
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #55 from Bernd Edlinger ---
But, how about that:
Index: deh.d
===
--- deh.d (revision 270395)
+++ deh.d (working copy)
@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
import gcc.unwind.p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #56 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Can't you just add prototypes?
Like:
static if (GNU_ARM_EABI_Unwinder)
{
@attribute("target", ("general-regs-only"))
private _Unwind_Reason_Code __gdc_personality(_Unwind_Action actions,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90128
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
CPU 2006 436.cactusADM also has an interesting history:
https://gcc.opensuse.org/gcc-old/SPEC/CFP/sb-czerny-head-64-2006/436_cactusADM_big.png
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #57 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #56)
> Can't you just add prototypes?
> Like:
> static if (GNU_ARM_EABI_Unwinder)
> {
> @attribute("target", ("general-regs-only"))
> private _Unwind_Reason_Code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90128
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> CPU 2006 436.cactusADM also has an interesting history:
> https://gcc.opensuse.org/gcc-old/SPEC/CFP/sb-czerny-head-64-2006/
> 436_cactusADM_big.png
compared to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88150
--- Comment #16 from Martin Nowak ---
Regarding the dlopen/dlclose in handleForName, the semantics of RTLD_NOLOAD are
so that it bumps the reference count if the library had been previously loaded.
The sections module uses the handle as identifie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89929
--- Comment #19 from Nikolay Bogoychev ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #18)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #17)
> > >
> > > @Martin:
> > >
> > > Thank you for the detailed answer. This could work for now. I have a few
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90129
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90110
--- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Thanks for the file. Unfortunately it looks fine.
The error is coming from Import_function_body::read_type in
gcc/go/gofrontend/import.cc. At the point of the error this->body_ +
this->off_ points to a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90128
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |target
--- Comment #7 from Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90110
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab ---
What is the condition i > 0x7fff for? Shouldn't that test val instead?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90095
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 17 13:28:39 2019
New Revision: 270410
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270410&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/90095
* internal-fn.c (expand_mul_overflow):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90110
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 17 Apr 2019, ian at airs dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90110
>
> --- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
> Thanks for the file. Unfortunately it looks f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89929
--- Comment #20 from Martin Liška ---
>
> Does this mean that if I have an avx512bw+dq function, I'd have to have two
> identical versions of it that I have to target with arch=canonlake and
> arch=amd-something-with-avx512? Seems a bit... unell
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90128
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Benchmarking r270408 on branch vs. trunk on Haswell doesn't show any
> regression
> for me. Will double-check with up-to-date CPU 2017 tree.
Confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871
--- Comment #30 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Is the *movsi_compare0 pattern actually ever a benefit before RA? At least in
this case it clearly results in a worse generated code rather than better, and
I bet in other cases too, it just ties the hands
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #58 from Bernd Edlinger ---
No, sorry, the attribute on the prototype gets ignored, as the following
is compiled without generating an error:
private int test(double x)
{
return x > 1.0;
}
static if (GNU_ARM_EABI_Unwinder)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #59 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That looks like a D FE bug then.
In any case, why can't you just use -mgeneral-regs-only on the deh.d
compilation command line?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90130
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90130
Bug ID: 90130
Summary: gdc.test/runnable/test12.d FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90110
--- Comment #7 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
> What is the condition i > 0x7fff for? Shouldn't that test val instead?
Yes, it certainly should. Thanks. It's not the problem here, but should be
fixed.
> Just a wild guess - does this->body_.su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90110
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 fr
20190417 (experimental) [trunk revision 270407] (GCC)
$ gdb -v
GNU gdb (Ubuntu 7.11.1-0ubuntu1~16.5) 7.11.1
#Wrong result#
$ gcc-trunk -g abc.c outer.c -O3
$ gdb -x cmds -batch a.out
Breakpoint 1 at 0x40040f: file abc.c, line 16.
Breakpoint 1, main () at abc.c:16
16optimize_me_not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90127
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88136
maic changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maic23 at live dot de
--- Comment #8 from maic -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89736
--- Comment #5 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kelvin
Date: Wed Apr 17 15:40:12 2019
New Revision: 270413
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270413&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-04-17 Kelvin Nilsen
Backport
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
--- Comment #18 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kelvin
Date: Wed Apr 17 15:40:12 2019
New Revision: 270413
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270413&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-04-17 Kelvin Nilsen
Backport
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871
--- Comment #31 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It's how you do a parallel of a mov and a flags set, which of course you
can have before RA, and you want created by combine, typically. Or do I
misunderstand the question?
(I though Arm have a "movs"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85164
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85762
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Apr 17 15:52:16 2019
New Revision: 270414
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270414&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-04-17 Martin Jambor
Backport from mainline
201
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85459
--- Comment #12 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Apr 17 15:52:16 2019
New Revision: 270414
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270414&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-04-17 Martin Jambor
Backport from mainline
201
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87008
--- Comment #12 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Apr 17 15:52:16 2019
New Revision: 270414
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270414&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-04-17 Martin Jambor
Backport from mainline
201
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85459
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
