https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14840
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102186
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #3)
> A patch is posted at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/578746.html
Fixed by r12-3363 in GCC12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63184
--- Comment #29 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:564efbf40077c25623cdd6ce2f911c56b5b08f6c
commit r12-3364-g564efbf40077c25623cdd6ce2f911c56b5b08f6c
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63184
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13071
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102206
--- Comment #3 from Greg Turner ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> Can you please show how do you configure and build GCC (gcc -v).
> And can you please attach a pre-processed boost source (and command-line
> used) that can reprodu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102207
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8a4602c2e0f81895415ba7ee23bf81dc795d1103
commit r12-3365-g8a4602c2e0f81895415ba7ee23bf81dc795d1103
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102207
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102186
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102195
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102206
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
>
> As for boost, I don't think any special configuration or version is required
> to make it happen ... [time passes...] got it, the specific build step that
> tends** to cause the failure is:
>
> /usr/bin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101947
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
The problem is that the dwarf2out_early_finish path does not finalize base
types so calc_die_sizes cannot compute the size of DW_OP_deref_type:
case DW_OP_deref_type:
case DW_OP_GNU_deref_type:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102200
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102202
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
We do have machinery (from profiling) to pass along min/max size which we
already
use, so I wonder if we should use those bounds in more cases.
Of course memset (..., [0, 1]) could be constant folded on GI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17935
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65964
Bug 65964 depends on bug 17935, which changed state.
Bug 17935 Summary: Two consecutive movzbl are generated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17935
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102205
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-06
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102206
--- Comment #5 from Greg Turner ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> (use -E option) to this bug. Note
Oh, /that/ kind of preprocessed! That's easy... I thought it was some kind of
re-usable pre-compiled header file thing, sorry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102205
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
So ICC does the same as GCC while ICX does the same as LLVM (most likely
because it is LLVM based).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102206
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
> I would think you'd want the one generated on the bugged compiler, not mine.
> But iiuc I guess they'd be identical, assuming all is well until
> gimplification?
Yes, that's identical, it's a source file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102206
--- Comment #7 from Greg Turner ---
Created attachment 51412
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51412&action=edit
xml_grammar_gcc_-E.cpp.xz
preproc boost cpp file that tends to trigger failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102212
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-06
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102206
--- Comment #8 from Greg Turner ---
Actually please ignore that one pending replacement, I probably generated it
wrong...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101824
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3f29e301f299a1b4e2c535affb964f0b97b7639c
commit r11-8964-g3f29e301f299a1b4e2c535affb964f0b97b7639c
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101925
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7f584a309092896bdbe83655fb5f425ac8adc019
commit r11-8965-g7f584a309092896bdbe83655fb5f425ac8adc019
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102046
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:57f6800aefdd102cd43f0df53ca8bcbcc7202b41
commit r11-8966-g57f6800aefdd102cd43f0df53ca8bcbcc7202b41
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102206
--- Comment #9 from Greg Turner ---
Never mind, corrected version is quite equivalent:
--- xml_grammar_gcc_-E.cpp 2021-09-06 01:38:48.125773266 -0700
+++ xml_grammar_gcc_-E-try2.cpp 2021-09-06 01:49:24.384875598 -0700
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
# 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83615
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
const has nothing to do with it:
typedef int **t;
class S {
public:
explicit operator t() {
return 0;
}
};
int main() {
S val;
t &&ref (val);
return 0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101947
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ---
Obvious kludge:
diff --git a/gcc/dwarf2out.c b/gcc/dwarf2out.c
index 07a479f6382..fb436b8c77c 100644
--- a/gcc/dwarf2out.c
+++ b/gcc/dwarf2out.c
@@ -19484,6 +19491,7 @@ loc_list_from_tree_1 (tree loc, int w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102213
Bug ID: 102213
Summary: Incorrect executable produced from valid input code
with virtual consteval
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83615
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Even more reduced testcase:
typedef int t;
struct S {
explicit operator t() {
return 0;
}
};
int main() {
S val;
t &&ref (val);
return 0;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102212
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83615
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xmh970252187 at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98554
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83615
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 98554 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83615
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63604
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iluvtrollhd at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66893
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63604
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85848
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63604
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kot.tom97 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102206
--- Comment #10 from Greg Turner ---
If you find yourself not readily reproducing, let me know
I suspect a pregenerated gentoo prefix might be a nice "drag-and-drop" way to
get someone up and running with a fully working reproduction. Of c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101505
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||97706
--- Comment #10 from Richard Bie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102206
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96127
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Krebbel ---
The testcase does not appear to fail on current GCC 10 branch. So I would just
close it as fixed in GCC 11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90390
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102214
Bug ID: 102214
Summary: ICE when compiling local class with -fno-weak
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86303
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC 7+ accepts it for C++17 and C++20 but rejects it for C++11 and C++14.
Maybe there was a rule change.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102214
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102206
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
I tried bootstrapping the current tip of gcc-11 branch with -O2 -march=native
on my
model name : AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Eight-Core Processor
but I can't reproduce the ICE on the provided boost test-case :/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102215
Bug ID: 102215
Summary: [GCN offloading] Missing '__atomic_compare_exchange_1'
etc.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102215
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So what did it do for __sync_val_compare_and_exchange_1 ?
Was that expanded inline, or do we have such entrypoint somewhere outside of
libatomic, something else?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101018
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
/* When adding a variable-sized variable, we have to handle all sorts
of additional bits of data: the pointer replacement variable, and
the parameters of the type. */
None of this code is expec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102216
Bug ID: 102216
Summary: False positive warray-bounds with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101009
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:917a675ad57f21f575c86192b22b1cc6d3bfc23d
commit r10-10095-g917a675ad57f21f575c86192b22b1cc6d3bfc23d
Author: Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101105
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aed52ca415b635463116486865a2a55f947cf8c1
commit r10-10096-gaed52ca415b635463116486865a2a55f947cf8c1
Author: Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101280
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ac6efdd70779a3be748d11c3b03c08df9ce15dd7
commit r10-10097-gac6efdd70779a3be748d11c3b03c08df9ce15dd7
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101173
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ac6efdd70779a3be748d11c3b03c08df9ce15dd7
commit r10-10097-gac6efdd70779a3be748d11c3b03c08df9ce15dd7
Author: Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101291
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1a4075c0a43fff9fac9df91c3e83e3a1949b69ff
commit r10-10098-g1a4075c0a43fff9fac9df91c3e83e3a1949b69ff
Author: Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101394
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:424737442fb7cd6ea8f0e63098c26cebdaf82a51
commit r10-10099-g424737442fb7cd6ea8f0e63098c26cebdaf82a51
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101009
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.3.1
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101291
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.3.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101394
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.3.0
Summary|[9/10 Regres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100495
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, for constructors this is likely a non-issue, because in_chrg etc. only
appears on constructors of classes with virtual bases and such constructors are
not constexpr.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102216
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102182
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:93e6809459f34ca7b5928f1729246b2e9dfb3eb4
commit r12-3368-g93e6809459f34ca7b5928f1729246b2e9dfb3eb4
Author: liuhongt
Date: Mon Sep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102182
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96188
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #6)
> The example in comment #4 is due to the same problem/limitation in the
> optimizer. The IL that triggers the warning is below:
I am going to fix this issue as pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102217
Bug ID: 102217
Summary: co_awaiting a temporary produced by ternary operator
crashes (double-free)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101449
--- Comment #1 from ensadc at mailnesia dot com ---
https://godbolt.org/z/fMr9acG15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101140
--- Comment #1 from ensadc at mailnesia dot com ---
https://godbolt.org/z/EaPf3anxx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102215
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
--- Comment #20 from Andrew Pinski ---
So on the trunk we get:
c_len.0_1 = c_len;
_2 = (long unsigned int) c_len.0_1;
_6 = &c + _2;
MEM [(struct pstream_t *)&ps] = &c;
MEM [(struct pstream_t *)&ps + 8B] = _6;
_17 = (signed long) c_l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77899
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-06
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100495
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus ---
I think my patch for moving the CFI<->GFC conversion to FE-generated code
partially helps,
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/578904.html
However, I still see the following issues:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102215
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Actually, looking at GCN, it is inline e.g. for both:
int
foo (int *p)
{
return __sync_val_compare_and_swap_4 (p, 1, 2);
}
int
bar (int *p)
{
int e = 1;
__atomic_compare_exchange_4 (p, &e, 2, 0, __AT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89984
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:652bef70d392f9541b12ef65b461009c8c8fd54a
commit r12-3369-g652bef70d392f9541b12ef65b461009c8c8fd54a
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Sat Sep 4 08:2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87980
--- Comment #7 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Is anybody ever looked into this? Any updates?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89984
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101551
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Schwinge ---
I've noticed that with an offloading-enabled build of GCC we're losing "note:
in expansion of macro '[...]'" diagnostics. (Effectively
'-ftrack-macro-expansion=0'?)
For example, 'libgomp.oacc-c-c++-commo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87980
--- Comment #8 from Jürgen Reuter ---
The actual workaround that I'm using (the code is from of our stale branches
which recently became active again) is:
[...]
subroutine qn_string_set (qns, col)
class(qn_string_t), intent(inout) :: qns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102218
Bug ID: 102218
Summary: 128-bit atomic compare and exchange does not honor
memory model on AArch64 and Arm
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101555
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] Compile |Compile slowdown in tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #14)
> This is http://cplusplus.github.com/LWG/lwg-active.html#2116 so let's
> suspend this.
Updated link: https://wg21.link/lwg2116
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100470
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |c++
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102199
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
See PR 96645 and PR 101227
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102201
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102219
Bug ID: 102219
Summary: fast-math inhibits fp contraction for a + b * a
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92505
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102206
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102220
Bug ID: 102220
Summary: Conversion from cv void* to object-type* not rejected
during constant evaluation
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyword
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102221
Bug ID: 102221
Summary: Missed optimizations for algorithms over
std::unique_ptr
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102219
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98429
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mkretz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86999
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56547
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asd0025 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91687
Bug 91687 depends on bug 86999, which changed state.
Bug 86999 Summary: missed FMA optimization with -fassociative-math
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86999
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98429
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56547
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chtz at informatik dot
uni-bremen.
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
