https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94406
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Hmm, we're invoking memset from libc which might use a different path on
CXL compared to Zen2?
Note that a vectorized epilogue should in no way cause additional
store-to-load forwarding penalties _but_ it m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94397
--- Comment #4 from markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The compilation error reported is due this change in PR93484:
--- a/gcc/fortran/match.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/match.c
@@ -,9 +,9 @@ gfc_match_type_spec (gfc_typespec *ts)
found:
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94408
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 94407 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94407
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94411
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94412
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
Summary|wrong code with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94421
Bug ID: 94421
Summary: [memory free] bug related to predication speculative
schedule
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94413
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94414
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94307
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Kees Cook from comment #5)
> Hi! I recently learned that Clang has -fsanitizer-minimal-runtime that is
> very close to what I was expecting to use:
>
> https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45295
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89479
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94416
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49774
Bug 49774 depends on bug 94416, which changed state.
Bug 94416 Summary: passing a restricted pointer to a function can be assumed
not to modify an accessed object
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94416
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94418
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94421
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
change_spec_dep_to_hard is called from two places:
* in sched_analyze_insn, it is conditionalized on (current_sched_info->flags &
DO_SPECULATION) already.
* in update_dep, it is conditionalized on if was_spec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94421
otcmaf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xuemaosheng at huawei dot com
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94421
--- Comment #3 from otcmaf ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> change_spec_dep_to_hard is called from two places:
> * in sched_analyze_insn, it is conditionalized on (current_sched_info->flags
> & DO_SPECULATION) already.
> * in upd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94386
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
> > These were both clean builds run on a powerpc64 power8 LE machine.
>
> The patch committed to fix(?) PR94246 reverted the code that fixed
> PR93665 and PR93600 without removing the now failing testcases a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94413
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94413
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94344
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:56f0b32476c0c261c8e08525f9e47fe87492447a
commit r10-7469-g56f0b32476c0c261c8e08525f9e47fe87492447a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94403
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5ea39b2412269d208bb6ebd78303815957bd4f70
commit r10-7470-g5ea39b2412269d208bb6ebd78303815957bd4f70
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94418
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-31
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94412
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1dcffc8ddc48f0b45d3d0d2f763ef5870560eb9a
commit r10-7471-g1dcffc8ddc48f0b45d3d0d2f763ef5870560eb9a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94368
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a27c534794dbe3530acae3427d2c58f937f1b050
commit r10-7472-ga27c534794dbe3530acae3427d2c58f937f1b050
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94414
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Right, this has nothing to do with constexpr. The contfilt view is not a
constant expression, so nothing you do with it will be constant evaluated, so
whether it's constexpr is irrelevant.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94412
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] wrong |[8/9 Regression] wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94344
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] Rotate|[9 Regression] Rotate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94368
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] ICE in|[9 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94413
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
in expand_vec_cond_expr_p there is
if (VECTOR_BOOLEAN_TYPE_P (cmp_op_type)
&& get_vcond_mask_icode (TYPE_MODE (value_type),
TYPE_MODE (cmp_op_type)) != CODE_FOR_nothin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94418
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(Adding the noexcept-specifier *should* be harmless, but it seems every time we
use one of the is_constructible traits something breaks).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94422
Bug ID: 94422
Summary: static_cast from std::array to enum class
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87222
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
May I please ping this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92626
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92626
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94422
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94422
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9 Regression] static_cast |[9/10 Regression]
|f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59859
Bug 59859 depends on bug 70390, which changed state.
Bug 70390 Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] internal compiler error: in
copy_loop_close_phi_args, at graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c:2114
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70390
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70390
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94423
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Last r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94423
Bug ID: 94423
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in replace_uses_by with -O2
-fsanitize=object-size since r10-6332
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94271
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94420
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-31
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94422
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94423
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94423
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48151
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48151&action=edit
gcc10-pr94423.patch
So, either we can avoid calling replace_uses_by for the lhs SSA_NAMEs used in
abnormal PHIs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94423
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Comment on attachment 48151
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48151
gcc10-pr94423.patch
If one replaces a SSA_NAME_OCCURS_IN_ABNORMAL_PHI def with another SSA name
one has to set SSA_NAME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94423
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Oh, and yes, you cannot replace a SSA use in a PHI on an abnormal edge with
an invariant because you have no where to insert the copy.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93720
Dmitrij Pochepko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dpochepk at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94420
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Reserving a register that already *is* reserved (by the ABI) is undefined,
of course.
But we shouldn't ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92947
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ville Voutilainen :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e06cde870edc7ec21736145b6857565d4b2f0e85
commit r10-7480-ge06cde870edc7ec21736145b6857565d4b2f0e85
Author: Ville Voutilainen
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94420
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'm not sure about the invalid, of course if one uses a global register var for
a fixed reg and stores something into it, then it is clearly UB, but this case
is ont about changing it, just inspecting, and I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92878
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ville Voutilainen :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e06cde870edc7ec21736145b6857565d4b2f0e85
commit r10-7480-ge06cde870edc7ec21736145b6857565d4b2f0e85
Author: Ville Voutilainen
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94398
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f14b41d27124601284347a10d496362c8b4b8e1c
commit r10-7481-gf14b41d27124601284347a10d496362c8b4b8e1c
Author: Felix Yang
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94424
Bug ID: 94424
Summary: [D] Alignment holes can in structs can still end up
with non-zero data
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94397
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to markeggleston from comment #4)
> The compilation error reported is due this change in PR93484:
>
> --- a/gcc/fortran/match.c
> +++ b/gcc/fortran/match.c
> @@ -,9 +,9 @@ gfc_mat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94420
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
cprop1 has done
LOCAL COPY-PROP: Replacing reg 2 in insn 7 with reg 118
which is wrong: the insn isn't valid after that. But there is nothing
that expresses that, the "R" constraint "just" becomes uns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94420
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It is undefined behaviour to access such a register in any way -- sure,
you *can* inspect it, there just is no guarantee at all what value you
will get.
It still is a useful thing to do in debug code an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94420
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So shouldn't predicate on that operand verify the same thing as the constraint
does (or insn condition)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94034
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94420
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #7 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94420
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94425
Bug ID: 94425
Summary: [D] Consider always settings ASM_VOLATILE_P on asm
statements
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94420
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md
index dcccb03..11ab745 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md
@@ -10311,7 +10311,8 @@ (define_in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94414
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94417
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89096
--- Comment #26 from Andrew Paprocki ---
Just re-summarizing now for 2020 since there have been a few twists and turns
and distractions.
This issue has nothing to do with CMake, -brtl, or -bexpall linker flags. This
issue only occurs when GCC is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94426
Bug ID: 94426
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in mangle_decl with -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94426
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89096
--- Comment #27 from Andrew Paprocki ---
60 second reproduction steps:
$ curl -O https://ftp.pcre.org/pub/pcre/pcre-8.42.tar.gz
$ tar zxvf pcre-8.42.tar.gz && cd pcre-8.42
$ CC="gcc-7" \
CXX="g++-7" \
CFLAGS="-maix32 -pthread" \
CXXFLAGS="-maix3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94422
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92507
Michał Mirosław changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mirq-gccboogs at rere dot
qmqm.pl
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87583
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Carl Love :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8ab40918a3b6b9093930193fe8900d738858e75f
commit r9-8425-g8ab40918a3b6b9093930193fe8900d738858e75f
Author: Carl Love
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93819
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Carl Love :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:02a201f7158b4d2d2b937ff3b37640126ce936d2
commit r9-8426-g02a201f7158b4d2d2b937ff3b37640126ce936d2
Author: Carl Love
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94424
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e8e0acbaa38ed57b4cbf9e60556f78a059ba2c0b
commit r10-7482-ge8e0acbaa38ed57b4cbf9e60556f78a059ba2c0b
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Tue Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90711
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0e66150084aa217811a5c45fb15e98d7ed3e8839
commit r9-8427-g0e66150084aa217811a5c45fb15e98d7ed3e8839
Author: Jason Merrill
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94424
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90214
Nicholas Krause changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xerofoify at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94427
Bug ID: 94427
Summary: 456.hmmer is 8-17% slower when compiled at -Ofast than
with GCC 9
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87583
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Carl Love :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bfb0e282e3dacb7c72f78b9b546b36a6fcc534e8
commit r8-10153-gbfb0e282e3dacb7c72f78b9b546b36a6fcc534e8
Author: Carl Love
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93819
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Carl Love :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9d9d5382765785afbd114e9b9f253a602871a047
commit r8-10154-g9d9d5382765785afbd114e9b9f253a602871a047
Author: Carl Love
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90711
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94205
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92665
--- Comment #7 from Sebastian Pop ---
Hi Andrew, have you committed the fix for this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90214
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is a ubsan error in GCC when GCC is built with ubsan. It's useless to test
on godbolt, because their GCC builds are not built with ubsan.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42633
Eyal Rozenberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eyalroz at technion dot ac.il
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92589
--- Comment #6 from Kees Cook ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> (In reply to Kees Cook from comment #2)
> > Is there anything to enforce a strict "only consider empty array size as
> > flexible array member" mode? This is an unfor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92589
--- Comment #7 from Kees Cook ---
(In reply to Kees Cook from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Kees Cook from comment #2)
> > > Is there anything to enforce a strict "only consider empty array size as
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92589
--- Comment #8 from Kees Cook ---
Created attachment 48153
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48153&action=edit
updated PoC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91203
qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94205
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
C++14 version that goes back to the introduction of C++14 constexpr in GCC 5:
struct S
{
struct A
{
S *p;
constexpr A(S* p): p(p) {}
constexpr operator int() { p->a = 5; return 6; }
};
in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90136
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:013fca64fc17ba646c3564eab52fac50f0751188
commit r10-7487-g013fca64fc17ba646c3564eab52fac50f0751188
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Thu Ap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:013fca64fc17ba646c3564eab52fac50f0751188
commit r10-7487-g013fca64fc17ba646c3564eab52fac50f0751188
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Thu Apr 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90136
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94427
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
OK, so it turns out the identified commit only allows us to shoot
ourselves in the foot - and there one too few branches, not too many.
The hottest loop, consuming most of the time is:
Percent Instr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93819
Carl Love changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93819
Carl Love changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #8 from Carl Love ---
Cl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87583
Carl Love changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94348
--- Comment #6 from Damian Rouson ---
Thanks, Tobias!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by GCC Administrator :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:73dd051894b8293d35ea1c436fa408c404b80813
commit r10-7488-g73dd051894b8293d35ea1c436fa408c404b80813
Author: GCC Administrator
Date:
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
