https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92452
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Nov 12 08:21:40 2019
New Revision: 278080
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278080&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/92452
* tree-vrp.c (vrp_prop::check_a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92464
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92449
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Nov 12 08:22:29 2019
New Revision: 278081
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278081&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/92449
* tree-complex.c (expand_complex_multiplic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92452
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92470
Bug ID: 92470
Summary: CFI_address wrongly assumes that lower bounds are at
zero – invalid for pointers + allocatables
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92470
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 47215
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47215&action=edit
Lightly tested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92461
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92460
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92462
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92464
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92465
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |target
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83118
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92469
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92471
Bug ID: 92471
Summary: [ICE] segmentation fault in ipa-profile.c
ipa_get_cs_argument_count (args=0x0)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92471
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90200
--- Comment #1 from Arseny Solokha ---
I cannot reproduce ti w/ gfortran-10.0.0-alpha20191110 snapshot and isl 0.22.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92441
--- Comment #2 from Hannes Hauswedell ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Can you please provide full command line of the GCC?
g++10 -std=c++17 -fconcepts dna4_test.ii
This triggers the ICE as mentioned in the original report. For
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 47216
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47216&action=edit
asm diff
-O2 -mfma -mtune=znver2 -fdbg-cnt=ivopts_loop:66:67 -fno-schedule-insns
-mno-stv -fno-tree-slsr
ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92471
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
I can reproduce that for -O2 -flto=16 -march=znver2 with PGO.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92472
Bug ID: 92472
Summary: enhancement: 5 * constify some parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92473
Bug ID: 92473
Summary: test pr92324-2.c fails on arm and aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92473
--- Comment #2 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 47218
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47218&action=edit
Execution trace for arm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92473
--- Comment #1 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 47217
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47217&action=edit
Execution trace for aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92474
Bug ID: 92474
Summary: Sanitizer breaks tail-recursion optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sani
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92471
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92123
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92123
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
Some side remarks:
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> The type used on the C side is:
This type is described in the Fortran standard; for Fortran 2018, it is
described in "18.5.3 The CFI_cdesc_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92123
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't see any conversion function to be called:
fsub (struct array15_integer(kind=4) & restrict dat)
{
{
integer(kind=4) * __tmp_INTEGER_4_rank_0;
{
signed char D.3928;
integer(kind=8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92475
Bug ID: 92475
Summary: incorrect code with optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92475
--- Comment #1 from Gunther Vogel ---
Created attachment 47220
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47220&action=edit
output of gcc -v -save-temps -W -Wall -O2 -S bug.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92475
--- Comment #2 from Gunther Vogel ---
Created attachment 47221
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47221&action=edit
assembly - no "AAA" in here
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92471
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
It also affected bootstrap-lto-lean with PGO:
[12135s] ../../gcc/ada/libgnat/s-except.ads:61:4: note: code may be
misoptimized unless '-fno-strict-aliasing' is used
[12136s] during IPA pass: cp
[12136s] lto1:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92475
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92462
Aleksei Voitylov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92462
--- Comment #5 from Aleksei Voitylov ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Indeed -fno-strict-aliasing might be a workaround (apart from the atomicity
> issue). Also using a character type for the access (uint8_t is _not_ a
> charac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92462
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92461
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Nov 12 12:08:07 2019
New Revision: 278093
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278093&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-12 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92461
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92460
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Nov 12 12:12:18 2019
New Revision: 278094
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278094&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-12 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92460
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92469
--- Comment #2 from John X ---
Yes, you are right. If we change "19" to "20", it still ICEs for older versions
of GCC.
$ cat test2.c
void foo ( void )
{
register int x asm ( "20" ) ;
int y = x;
}
$ gcc-snapshot8 --version
gcc (G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92462
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #7 from Wilco ---
(In reply t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92469
--- Comment #3 from John X ---
Yes, you are right. If we change "19" to "20", it still ICEs for older versions
of GCC.
$ cat test2.c
void foo ( void )
{
register int x asm ( "20" ) ;
int y = x;
}
$ gcc-snapshot8 --version
gcc (G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92469
--- Comment #4 from John X ---
Sorry, I submitted the same comment twice due to the bad network environment. I
don't know how to delete the duplicate one. Any one could help me?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92475
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92460
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92461
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92475
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You're right, sorry for not checking 9 and 10 properly. I also see it working
again after r263875.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92466
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64*-linux-gnu|powerpc64*-linux-gnu,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92476
Bug ID: 92476
Summary: [10 regression] SEGV in cgraph_edge_brings_value_p
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92476
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92462
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92476
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92462
--- Comment #9 from Aleksei Voitylov ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #8)
> The full preprocessed source is provided and it clearly says
>
> typedef unsigned char uint8_t;
>
> in line 10, so it is in fact a character type.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92475
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92475
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced C testcase:
__attribute__((noipa)) void
quux (unsigned long x)
{
static int cnt;
unsigned long v = cnt++ ? 6 : 0;
if (x != v)
__builtin_abort ();
}
__attribute__((noipa)) void
foo (const ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92473
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92472
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Can you post the patch (and separate out the libstdc++ parts)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92477
Bug ID: 92477
Summary: [[nodiscard]] method in a decltype expression causes
"warning: ignoring return value of"
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92472
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Sadly no.
I am happy for anyone else to pick up my suggested patches and
post them.
There were about 35 style messages of type "constParameter" produced
for gcc trunk. I'll have a look at which other o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92430
--- Comment #5 from iii at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: iii
Date: Tue Nov 12 14:24:35 2019
New Revision: 278095
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278095&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Free dominance info at the beginning of pass_jump_after_combine
try
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92473
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 47222
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47222&action=edit
patch
Testing the following (on x86_64), inspected aarch64 code to be correct.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92478
Bug ID: 92478
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92470
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88952
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92474
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, starting with r273603, the trunk doesn't tail call optimize this either
even without -fsanitize=, unless -fno-tree-sra.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89070
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||src at andyf dot de
--- Comment #2 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92477
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92474
--- Comment #2 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Note, starting with r273603, the trunk doesn't tail call optimize this
> either even without -fsanitize=, unless -fno-tree-sra.
Is there a report for this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48200
Tomasz Kłoczko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kloczko.tomasz at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92478
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89070
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92474
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
No, feel free to file it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92479
Bug ID: 92479
Summary: missing warnings for unreachable codes with
-Wunreachable-code
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92479
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The code for Wunreachable-code was removed a long time ago (around 5-10 years
ago).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92398
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92305
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #6)
> On powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu
I can reproduce it on a powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu w/o real offloading. It
fails here for subroutine test_dummy_opt_val_cal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92305
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #8)
In gdb [GNU gdb (Ubuntu 7.7.1-0ubuntu5~14.04.3) 7.7.1], which is really not the
newest, I get:
(gdb) pt c_aptr
type =
and stepping in, gives (all variables shoul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92480
Bug ID: 92480
Summary: Parameters in consteval functions should be constant
expressions.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92305
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus ---
The callee is:
>
and the hidden argument (_c_aptr) is:
constant 1>
which both look fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92305
--- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus ---
Optimized dump is:
void * c_bptr;
void * c_aptr;
real(kind=8) * bptr;
real(kind=8) bb;
real(kind=8) * aptr;
real(kind=8) aa;
real(kind=8) aa.1_1;
real(kind=8) bb.2_2;
:
aa.1_1 = aa;
bb.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92462
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Monakov ---
> atomic_cmpxchg_func tries to cast 'dest' from uint8_t* to int*
I made a typo here, I meant uint32_t rather than uint8_t, and there's no
aliasing violation here as signedness difference is explicitly O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83688
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Nov 12 17:18:37 2019
New Revision: 278098
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278098&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/83688 - check if buffers may overlap when copying strings us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35503
--- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Nov 12 17:18:37 2019
New Revision: 278098
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278098&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/83688 - check if buffers may overlap when copying strings u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84774
Bug 84774 depends on bug 83688, which changed state.
Bug 83688 Summary: Please check if buffers may overlap when copying strings
using sprintf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83688
What|Removed |Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83688
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92480
Hannes Hauswedell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92123
--- Comment #8 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Jakub,
Thanks for spotting that. For whatever reason,
* trans-decl.c (gfc_get_symbol_decl): Assumed shape and assumed
rank dummies of bind C procs require deferred initialization.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92398
--- Comment #5 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The assembler mismatches on power 7 and power 9 date way, way back at least
into early 2019. The short span where the test case failed to work at all
threw me off. Sorry about that!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48200
--- Comment #35 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Any progress on that issue?
> Just hit that issue trying to build NetworkManager
>
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/NetworkManager/NetworkManager/issues/278
I am working on a patch for symver attribute, ho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92479
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92305
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 47223
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47223&action=edit
-fdump-rtl-expand for test case in comment 9, compiled on
powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu using -O0 (it doesn't f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92464
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
What is the testcase testing? Whether we can properly vectorize this
code, right? And for p7 we now do it correctly, but thought it was
too expensive before?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92305
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92481
Bug ID: 92481
Summary: g++ 9.2.0 SegFault
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92482
Bug ID: 92482
Summary: Possibly wrong error diagnostic
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92483
Bug ID: 92483
Summary: [10 Regression] many jit test failures due to ABRT,
SEGV
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92065
Rolf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rolf.h.myhre at ntnu dot no
--- Comment #2 from R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92412
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Nov 12 18:49:31 2019
New Revision: 278099
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278099&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/92412 - excessive errno aliasing assumption defeats
o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92412
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92412
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92472
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||internal-improvement
CC|
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
