https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95627
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at linux dot
vnet.ibm.com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95628
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95633
Bug ID: 95633
Summary: [11 regression] ICEs since
r11-1143-gb05d5563f4be13b4a0d0951375a82adf483973c0
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95634
Bug ID: 95634
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in output_operand: invalid address
mode
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95634
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-11
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95634
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Most likely a ptr_mode vs Pmode issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95540
Michael Bruck changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95633
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95634
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Most likely a ptr_mode vs Pmode issue.
Yep, I've got a working patch for it..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93429
fxue at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95635
Bug ID: 95635
Summary: -Warray-bounds falsely claims out-of-bounds access
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95488
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao.liu ---
Microbenchmark
cat test.c
#include
#include
#include
typedef char v16qi __attribute__ ((vector_size (16)));
extern v16qi interleave_mul (v16qi, v16qi);
extern v16qi extend_mul (v16qi, v16qi);
#defi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95524
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
Microbenchmark show
interleave_ashiftrt : 69023847
magic_ashiftrt : 62488066
Seems 10% improvement.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95635
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95636
Bug ID: 95636
Summary: ICE in sched2: internal compiler error: in
create_block_for_bookkeeping, at sel-sched.c:4549
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95634
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95634
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8cff672cb9a132d3d3158c2edfc9a64b55292b80
commit r11-1197-g8cff672cb9a132d3d3158c2edfc9a64b55292b80
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95626
--- Comment #2 from Godeffroy Valet ---
Oh, ok, thank you for the information. Strange rule...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
--- Comment #33 from Martin Liška ---
>
> The profile directory generated by the new executable compiled with this
> patch was 112G in size, a lot smaller than previous 1TB.
That's quite a promising reduction.
> Though still bigger than what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95627
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On June 10, 2020 9:54:39 PM GMT+02:00, "marxin at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95627
>
>Bug ID: 95627
> Summary: [11 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95627
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95199
--- Comment #9 from Kaipeng Zhou ---
Created attachment 48717
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48717&action=edit
Remove extra variable created for memory reference in loop vectorization.
Looks like no one is preparing this pa
#24 from David Binderman ---
Is this error message related ?
/home/dcb/gcc/results.20200611/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/11.0.0/include/xsaveoptintrin.h:55:9:
internal compiler error: Error: global_options are modified in local context
55 | #pragma GCC pop_options
| ^~~
0xe6fefe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37974
Maciej W. Rozycki changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17887
Maciej W. Rozycki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||deji_aking at yahoo dot ca
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95637
Bug ID: 95637
Summary: Read-only data assigned to `.sdata' rather than
`.rodata'
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17887
Maciej W. Rozycki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ma...@linux-mips.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95631
Maciej W. Rozycki changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #5 from Maciej
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94022
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6a07010b774cb5a0b1790b857e69d3d8534eebd2
commit r11-1228-g6a07010b774cb5a0b1790b857e69d3d8534eebd2
Author: José Rui Faustino de S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95638
Bug ID: 95638
Summary: Legit-looking code doesn't work with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95578
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3e9261f0e013108135bf09f0f91b279b9c5cbd9e
commit r10-8271-g3e9261f0e013108135bf09f0f91b279b9c5cbd9e
Author: Patrick Palka
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95578
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95638
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95609
--- Comment #2 from Niall Douglas ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> (In reply to Niall Douglas from comment #0)
> > I would assume that the ABI ship has sailed, as usual
>
> Nope.
Ok, so if you did want to reuse span as any fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95638
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85868
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2ff0f48819c8a7ed5d7c03e2bfc02e5907e2ff1a
commit r11-1230-g2ff0f48819c8a7ed5d7c03e2bfc02e5907e2ff1a
Author: José Rui Faustino de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52351
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2ff0f48819c8a7ed5d7c03e2bfc02e5907e2ff1a
commit r11-1230-g2ff0f48819c8a7ed5d7c03e2bfc02e5907e2ff1a
Author: José Rui Faustino de S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95638
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> The code works with -flifetime-dse=1, so I bet there's some object that goes
> out of life:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html
> https://gc
Snake Trap
catches all snakes, rodents and crowling insects (including poisonous snakes)
20,000 LBP per unit (up to 5 traps with installation) - suitable for Homes
16,000 LBP per unit (up to 20 traps with installation and weekly visit) -
suitable for Bakeries, Pastries, Retaurants or Hotels
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95627
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95627
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:444035eafa2fbabbb1261f258bfd41e8051aab34
commit r11-1231-g444035eafa2fbabbb1261f258bfd41e8051aab34
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95639
Bug ID: 95639
Summary: wrong error location
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: una
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95331
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2ee70f5d161edd99a7af97d166b251bcf83cd91b
commit r11-1235-g2ee70f5d161edd99a7af97d166b251bcf83cd91b
Author: José Rui Faustino de S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95640
Bug ID: 95640
Summary: gfortran ieee_selected_real_kind returns 10
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95639
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95640
--- Comment #1 from Bill Long ---
The main problem here is that selected_real_kind and ieee_selected_real_kind
have different specifications. The ieee_selected_real_kind requires a KIND
value corresponding to an IEEE floating format, whereas sele
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95609
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95639
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95503
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:87af4f40453a9c84363bde5d9a58466de7fbee2e
commit r11-1236-g87af4f40453a9c84363bde5d9a58466de7fbee2e
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95640
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95091
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:605e9b1a9b3250537a7269eba7e9c316b0f00d29
commit r10-8273-g605e9b1a9b3250537a7269eba7e9c316b0f00d29
Author: Harald Anlauf
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95091
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bf6199ecc9c2dc9f6b5eca3d18ff48b374a8feb9
commit r10-8272-gbf6199ecc9c2dc9f6b5eca3d18ff48b374a8feb9
Author: Harald Anlauf
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95331
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52351
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95331
Bug 95331 depends on bug 52351, which changed state.
Bug 52351 Summary: Wrong bounds when passing an array section to an intent-in
pointer dummy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52351
What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
--- Comment #34 from Qing Zhao ---
>
>> Though still bigger than what ICC generated.
>
> Yep, but we should be only 2x bigger right now?
Yes, around 2-3 times bigger, much better now.
>
> Can you please test the parallel merging script? I can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85868
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95331
Bug 95331 depends on bug 85868, which changed state.
Bug 85868 Summary: Subarray of a pointer array associated with a pointer dummy
argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85868
What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94022
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95091
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:77137fbd464b20e2422c887d1e46fa5f1c38dc9e
commit r9-8666-g77137fbd464b20e2422c887d1e46fa5f1c38dc9e
Author: Harald Anlauf
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95091
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:abfe42c1fb66a534290bd0a808c2d90842ee848b
commit r9-8665-gabfe42c1fb66a534290bd0a808c2d90842ee848b
Author: Harald Anlauf
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95091
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95578
--- Comment #5 from gcc-bugs at marehr dot dialup.fu-berlin.de ---
Thank you for the quick response and quick fix :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95635
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||86318
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95640
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95641
Bug ID: 95641
Summary: Bogus error message in the class base specifier
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94335
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to kal.conley from comment #6)
For reference, this was also submitted as pr95353 and is now fixed on trunk
(GCC 11).
The test case in comment #0 still triggers a warning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95641
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95638
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't see anything obviously wrong with the code. Nothing seems to write to
the storage before the constructor, let alone rely on those writes being
preserved.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95640
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 02:56:58PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> IEEE-754 permits the extended double type (See 3.7 Extended and
> extendable precisions). I do not see in the Fortran standard tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57359
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95640
--- Comment #5 from Bill Long ---
The same user also submitted a bug about IEEE_FMA not being supported. Is
there already a bug/rfe for that in the gcc bugzilla?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95640
--- Comment #6 from Bill Long ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #3)
> (In reply to Bill Long from comment #0)
> > > cat test.f90
>
> > Gfortran:
> >
> > > module swap PrgEnv-intel PrgEnv-gnu
> > > gfortran test.f90
> > > ./a.out
> > se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95642
Bug ID: 95642
Summary: std::fstream ctr and open member functions fail to
compile with argument of custom type convertible to
std::filesystem::path
Product: gcc
V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95643
Bug ID: 95643
Summary: Optimizer fails to realize that a variable tested
twice in a row is the same both times
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92993
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95640
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 04:12:57PM +, longb at cray dot com wrote:
>
> --- Comment #5 from Bill Long ---
> The same user also submitted a bug about IEEE_FMA not being supported. Is
> there already a bug/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95644
Bug ID: 95644
Summary: IEEE_FMA is missing from the IEEE_ARITHMETIC module
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95645
Bug ID: 95645
Summary: Linux kernel regression "during GIMPLE pass:
adjust_alignment"
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95237
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||elver at google dot com
--- Comment #16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95645
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95640
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 04:21:25PM +, longb at cray dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95640
>
> --- Comment #6 from Bill Long ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment #3)
> > (In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94749
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b32eea9c0c25a03e77170675abc4e4bcab6d2b3b
commit r11-1238-gb32eea9c0c25a03e77170675abc4e4bcab6d2b3b
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95646
Bug ID: 95646
Summary: arm-none-eabi function attribute
'cmse_nonsecure_entry' wipes register values with -Os
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94749
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed in master. I'll keep the bug open as I will probably backport the fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95644
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
--- Comment #35 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Qing Zhao from comment #34)
> >
> >> Though still bigger than what ICC generated.
> >
> > Yep, but we should be only 2x bigger right now?
> Yes, around 2-3 times bigger, much better now.
Fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95643
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
After FRE1 we have
_2 = x_9(D) == 0;
if (_2 != 0)
so we assert things for _2 and not x_9, and we lose the __builtin_unreachable
information in CCP2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95544
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7fd614ee818983274eb5e47cbb8ec68b20994963
commit r11-1240-g7fd614ee818983274eb5e47cbb8ec68b20994963
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95611
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #27 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:800dac8fca3cf75512913e380df339fa2253ba76
commit r10-8274-g800dac8fca3cf75512913e380df339fa2253ba76
Author: Iain Sandoe
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95611
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:393ccb72566dc004b9ab5c3b8fb6fdca6c095812
commit r11-1241-g393ccb72566dc004b9ab5c3b8fb6fdca6c095812
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95611
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3b9a3b484f7c89bc5064bf32ecfa2b4aee218d5f
commit r10-8275-g3b9a3b484f7c89bc5064bf32ecfa2b4aee218d5f
Author: Harald Anlauf
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95611
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f2db0516e1ad6e1c08ed36b14920422f7699c153
commit r9-8667-gf2db0516e1ad6e1c08ed36b14920422f7699c153
Author: Harald Anlauf
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95611
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91640
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Tobias,
are you still planning a backport to 9-branch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94749
--- Comment #6 from serpent7776 at gmail dot com ---
thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95640
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 10:14:21AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
>
> IEEE-754 calls binary32, 64, 128 the basic formats (Sec. 3, p. 6):
>
> Five basic formats are defined in this clause:
> Three binary form
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95642
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90704
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manx-bugzilla@problemloesun
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
