https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener ---
It also looks the hash_table hash function is weak judging
from the time spent in the equality routine.
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-pre.c
===
--- gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90385
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90383
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.2
Summary|[9 Regression] G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90381
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
you can use the be or le target specifiers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90379
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
You need to do 'make -k check' since some tests are always expected to fail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90356
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 8 07:21:48 2019
New Revision: 271001
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271001&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/90356
* match.pd ((X +/- 0.0) +/- 0.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90378
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90248
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> Yes it does look like I messed up. I copied an optimization from LLVM so I
> think they also mess up a similar way (though differently).
Andrew - can you pleas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90381
--- Comment #3 from Li Jia He ---
Author: helijia
Date: Wed May 8 07:52:26 2019
New Revision: 271002
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271002&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR other/90381
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr88676-2.c: Add 'target le
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329
--- Comment #21 from Janne Blomqvist ---
I filed https://github.com/Reference-LAPACK/lapack/issues/339 to start a
discussion about fixing CBLAS and LAPACKE in upstream LAPACK.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90386
Bug ID: 90386
Summary: Offloading: libgfortran, libm dependencies
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc, openmp
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48429
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57534
bin cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90350
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90351
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87835
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Wed May 8 10:01:30 2019
New Revision: 271004
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271004&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Address compiler diagnostics in libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/pr87835.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90351
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87835
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Wed May 8 10:03:04 2019
New Revision: 271005
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271005&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Address compiler diagnostics in libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/pr87835.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90240
--- Comment #10 from bin cheng ---
Author: amker
Date: Wed May 8 11:24:38 2019
New Revision: 271007
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271007&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/90240
* tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (get_scal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90078
--- Comment #14 from bin cheng ---
Author: amker
Date: Wed May 8 11:37:45 2019
New Revision: 271008
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271008&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/90078
* tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (INFTY):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90261
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Patch at [1].
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-05/msg00356.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89629
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed May 8 12:17:20 2019
New Revision: 271009
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271009&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/89629 fix _Hash_bytes for lengths > INT_MAX
Backport from m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90105
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed May 8 12:17:26 2019
New Revision: 271010
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271010&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90105 make forward_list::sort stable
While testing the fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90105
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89629
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90387
Bug ID: 90387
Summary: [9 Regression] __builtin_constant_p and -Warray-bounds
warnings
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90277
--- Comment #5 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Wed May 8 13:03:32 2019
New Revision: 271011
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271011&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-08 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/90277
* te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90388
Bug ID: 90388
Summary: Disabled hash specialization should not be invocable
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90388
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90388
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Patch for both issues:
@@ -830,14 +847,23 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
template
struct hash>
: public __hash_base>,
-private __poison_hash::pointer>
+ private __poison_hash::po
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90388
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Alternative patch:
operator>=(nullptr_t, const unique_ptr<_Tp, _Dp>& __x)
{ return !(nullptr < __x); }
- /// std::hash specialization for unique_ptr.
- template
-struct hash>
-: public
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90387
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90379
--- Comment #2 from Marius Maraloi ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> You need to do 'make -k check' since some tests are always expected to fail.
I ran 'make -k check', it produces the same result as without '-k':
--- snip ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88167
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Wed May 8 14:36:15 2019
New Revision: 271012
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271012&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm][PR88167] Fix __builtin_return_address returns invalid address
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88167
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90389
Bug ID: 90389
Summary: std::deque::emplace tries to call wrong overload
internally
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90390
Bug ID: 90390
Summary: incorrect list initialization behavior for references
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59890
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90389
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90391
Bug ID: 90391
Summary: nonconforming value initialization when type T has a
base class with a user-defined default constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90384
Michael Deakin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90392
Bug ID: 90392
Summary: Assertion failure in ldlang.c:6868 when compiling with
-flto
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90392
--- Comment #1 from ohaiziejohwahkeezuoz at xff dot cz ---
Also, the issue did not happen with 8.3.0 and the same binutils. An I also get
this assertion when building with i686-musl-linux cross-compiler, but
interestingly, when building a differnt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68792
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> This config setting would be a good start:
>
> EXCLUDE_SYMBOLS= std::_[A-Z]*
Hmm, I forgot about that setting. I've been adding @cond and @endcond a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90392
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
It indeed should choose a temporary file name. Can you quote the full
orginal gcc commandline?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90392
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Component|lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90393
Bug ID: 90393
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in return statement with a
conditional operator, one of the second and third
arguments is throw, and the other is a const variable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90277
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90392
--- Comment #3 from ohaiziejohwahkeezuoz at xff dot cz ---
Here it is:
${LDCMD:-aarch64-linux-musl-gcc} -pthread -Wa,--noexecstack -Wall -O3 -g0 -Os
-fomit-frame-pointer -Wno-implicit-fallthrough -flto -g0 -Os
-fomit-frame-pointer -Wno-implicit-f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90379
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90393
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 8 17:06:46 2019
New Revision: 271013
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271013&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/59813
PR tree-optimization/89060
* tree-ssa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89060
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 8 17:06:46 2019
New Revision: 271013
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271013&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/59813
PR tree-optimization/89060
* tree-ssa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90393
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Without const:
struct S {
S() = default;
S(const S&) {}
};
S f() {
S m;
return true ? m : throw 0;
}
int main() {}
I see a different ICE:
90393.C: In function ‘S f()’:
90393.C:8:29: inter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90393
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90394
Bug ID: 90394
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in is_value_included_in, at
tree-ssa-uninit.c:1055
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90383
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90395
Bug ID: 90395
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed (error:
BB 2 cannot throw but has an EH edge)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner at DLR dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Melven.Roehrig-Zoe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90379
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Marius Maraloi from comment #2)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > You need to do 'make -k check' since some tests are always expected to fail.
> I ran 'make -k check', it produces
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90379
--- Comment #5 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I am seeing the same issue on Darwin 18.5.0 (macOSX 10.4.4) with XCode 10.2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90370
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90379
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #5)
> I am seeing the same issue on Darwin 18.5.0 (macOSX 10.4.4) with XCode 10.2.
Yeah, likewise, I'm looking at my Darwin18 system right now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90370
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The issue is basically that the C++ Standard Library defines two categories for
error numbers known to the implementation: "generic" and "system", where the
former is for the POSIX errno values, and the lat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90396
Bug ID: 90396
Summary: error while using sizeof in [[assert]]: internal
compiler error: in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.c:13199
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90397
Bug ID: 90397
Summary: Incompatibility with clang-tidy on std::variant
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90398
Bug ID: 90398
Summary: Segmentation fault when using [[assert]] and
-fno-exception
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90397
--- Comment #1 from philip.salvaggio at mac dot com ---
I was able to rectify the issue by removing the noexcept in on line
263. I assume, that would imply that the noexcept's on the other overloads
would also need to be removed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90397
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90397
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90399
Bug ID: 90399
Summary: split-stack + shared library + static object
construction (C++)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89060
--- Comment #8 from Rich Felker ---
With the above commit, should this problem be fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90379
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 46317
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46317&action=edit
Don't provide test_text for wrap fixes.
The problem here is that the version I applied still had "test_text" set
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90399
--- Comment #1 from Martin Karsten ---
Sorry, I accidentally included a version of the Makefile that I had used for
testing and that contains the flag '-nodefaultlibs' when building the library.
This leads to other problems. The correct Makefile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90397
--- Comment #3 from philip.salvaggio at mac dot com ---
Yep! I added the noexcept on there on my local version and that also resolved
the issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90399
--- Comment #2 from Martin Karsten ---
I single-stepped through the call
0x77fc71f5 <+107>: callq 0x77fc7040
<__splitstack_makecontext@plt>
and via indirect rip-relative addressing, it ends up at the (executable)
__splitstack_ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90351
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed May 8 21:55:13 2019
New Revision: 271018
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271018&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-08 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/90351
PR fortran/90329
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329
--- Comment #22 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed May 8 21:55:13 2019
New Revision: 271018
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271018&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-08 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/90351
PR fortran/90329
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90351
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90400
Bug ID: 90400
Summary: _Pragma not always expanded in the right location
within macros
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/Referenc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90394
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Bug seems to start someplace between revision 270600 and 270750.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89424
--- Comment #3 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kelvin
Date: Wed May 8 22:23:11 2019
New Revision: 271020
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271020&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-05-08 Kelvin Nilsen
Backport
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89271
--- Comment #23 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Wed May 8 23:07:26 2019
New Revision: 271022
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271022&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[RS6000] PR89271, gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-simode2.c
This patch makes a numb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90349
Darryl Okahata changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||darryl_okahata at keysight dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90392
--- Comment #4 from ohaiziejohwahkeezuoz at xff dot cz ---
Without -save-temps, generated name is random. So while there's some issue
there, too, because '-ldl.res' doesn't make much sense as an output for %u.res,
it is not the cause of the assert
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90349
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Darryl Okahata from comment #3)
> If it weren't for the false positives, I'd suggest making this an error when
> optimization is used.
In C/C++ requires no diagnostic on runtime undefined code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89271
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87847
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
An idea would be to hash TEMPLATE_TEMPLATE_PARMs differently in
iterative_hash_template_arg: hash its TEMPLATE_TYPE_PARM_INDEX and
TEMPLATE_TEMPLATE_PARM_TEMPLATE_DECL, so that when they compare equal, they
h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57534
--- Comment #34 from bin cheng ---
So we could have three different addressing modes here.
1. What we have now:
leaq0(,%rbp,8), %rax
movsd 8(%rbx,%rax), %xmm0
addsd (%rbx,%rbp,8), %xmm0
addq$8, %rbp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90401
Bug ID: 90401
Summary: Missed propagation of by-ref constant argument to
callee function
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78998
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80684
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90400
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90402
Bug ID: 90402
Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE in
slpeel_duplicate_current_defs_from_edges
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90403
Bug ID: 90403
Summary: __target_clones__ should directly call other
__target_clones__ functions, as appropiate
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90248
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57534
--- Comment #35 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 9 May 2019, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57534
>
> --- Comment #34 from bin cheng ---
> So we could have three different addressing mod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90393
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
