https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103405
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
Fixed by g:16e85390507ea92331c9052393b591202007f5ab (forgot to add PR marker)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103409
--- Comment #2 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> The two main changes during that time period was jump threading and modref.
> modref seems might be more likely with wrf being fortran code and even using
> nested functions and such.
Yep,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103423
Bug ID: 103423
Summary: 19% cpu2006 wrf compile time regression with -flto
between g:0b7a11874d4eb428 and g:704e8a825c78b9a8
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103409
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
I filled in PR103423. Interesting observation is that both regressions are cca
18% but happens at different time-ranges. This one is spec2017 WRF while the
other is spec2006 WRF and neither reproduce on both.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93259
--- Comment #4 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
This might be related to CWG2487 "Type dependence of function-style cast to
incomplete array type"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103405
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103423
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-25
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103376
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:531dae29a67e915a145d908bd2f46d22bc369c11
commit r12-5512-g531dae29a67e915a145d908bd2f46d22bc369c11
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103424
Bug ID: 103424
Summary: Ignoring -mfpu=sp_full/-mfpu=-sp_lite/-msingle-float
Product: gcc
Version: 8.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103409
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103417
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:94912212d3d1be0b1c490e9b5f45165ef5f30d8a
commit r12-5513-g94912212d3d1be0b1c490e9b5f45165ef5f30d8a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103424
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Try using TFLAGS instead of CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103412
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] ICE: |[10/11/12 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103424
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103413
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Sum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103414
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Sum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103415
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103414
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[PDT] ICE in|[10/11/12 Regression] [PDT]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103395
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103416
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Chung-Lin Tang from comment #1)
> Can you see if adding this patch:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-November/583279.html
> fixes this problem? If so, then it should be another o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103395
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||scox at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103416
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
Okay, the
map(to:D.4217 [len: 4][implicit]) map(tofrom:n [len: 4][implicit])
issue is not new – only the '[implicit]' + the misaligned address one (fixed by
the patch from comment 1).
* * *
Thus regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103425
Bug ID: 103425
Summary: 48% tramp3d regression between g:df1a0d526e2e4c75 and
g:9e026da720091704 with -Ofast -march=native at Zen
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103254
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8acbd7bef6edbf537e3037174907029b530212f6
commit r12-5514-g8acbd7bef6edbf537e3037174907029b530212f6
Author: Aldy Hernandez
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103254
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d1c1919ef8a18eea9d5c1741f8c9adaabf5571f2
commit r12-5515-gd1c1919ef8a18eea9d5c1741f8c9adaabf5571f2
Author: Aldy Hernandez
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80330
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103395
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Apparently the change on the systemtap side was:
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=systemtap.git;a=commit;f=includes/sys/sdt.h;h=eaa15b047688175a94e3ae796529785a3a0af208
which indeed adds a lot of newlines to t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103416
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 51872
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51872&action=edit
RFC Patch to avoid the pointless evaluation, see comment 4
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #3)
> * Wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103416
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #4)
> Created attachment 51872 [details]
> RFC Patch to avoid the pointless evaluation, see comment 4
The default was supposed to be 'false' - to be overridden where
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103425
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I hope it was not caused by my patch. As it could in theory cause cost
differences
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103395
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, the %n[_SDT_S##no] in there need to stay (dunno about the
_SDT_ASM_SUBSTR(_SDT_ARGTMPL(_SDT_A##no)) stuff), but that could be achieved
by giving the macro from, to, arg, args:vararg arguments and use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103052
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:298a4694f89ecb512be8ecba0512558996961fae
commit r10-10294-g298a4694f89ecb512be8ecba0512558996961fae
Author: Jan Hubicka
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103052
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6a1358f7ea475e9d46c1535656bdfb2a7904
commit r11-9310-g6a1358f7ea475e9d46c1535656bdfb2a7904
Author: Jan Hubicka
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46476
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103426
Bug ID: 103426
Summary: Acceptance of invalid template specialization in a
namespace not enclosing the specialized template
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103425
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103427
Bug ID: 103427
Summary: Alignment of C++ references and 'this' pointer not
used by optimizer
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103427
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> Since https://reviews.llvm.org/D99790 Clang optimizes it:
Oops, I meant to paste this, from clang 13.0.0 at -O1
f(int&): #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103427
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
https://godbolt.org/z/8aMc14qfW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103427
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103426
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103052
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3d1f5e86fb4351a109d45fe441b1b00d6e56c277
commit r9-9844-g3d1f5e86fb4351a109d45fe441b1b00d6e56c277
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103052
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103427
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oops more slip-ups in the original submission ..
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> Although an int* might not actually point to a valid int, and so could be
> misaligned, and int& must be bo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103427
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> I'm not sure if we can rely on this for non-C++ FEs though, so perhaps a
> langhook that we use during evrp on (D) SSA_NAME of PARM_DECLs and ask the
> FE whet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103408
--- Comment #3 from 康桓瑋 ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> Started with r12-5386, obviously.
I don't know if it is caused by the same bug.
template
concept C = auto([]{});
static_assert(C<0>);
https://godbolt.org/z/nj6qbGxP7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103427
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Is the case important enough to worry about? Actual accesses will be assumed
to be aligned according to the type.
But sure, we could in theory special-case REFERENCE_TYPE in CCP. Does any
other frontend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103427
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> Is the case important enough to worry about?
I have no idea, I just noticed that clang is doing this and we aren't.
I doubt it's very important.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103359
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:661c02e54ea72fb55205df0a717951ff28bb739e
commit r12-5522-g661c02e54ea72fb55205df0a717951ff28bb739e
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103427
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> Is the case important enough to worry about? Actual accesses will be
> assumed to be aligned according to the type.
>
> But sure, we could in theory special-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103359
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103427
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 25 Nov 2021, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103427
>
> --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103428
Bug ID: 103428
Summary: Parameter packs not expanded with local struct in
lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103425
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Summary|48% tram
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103421
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I think that makes sense in some way, not sure we want
-march-for-check=bogus12323123423452345. Also consider -march=xyz
-moption-not-valid-for-xyz -march=but-for-this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102648
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1598bd47b2a4a5f12b5a987d16d82634644db4b6
commit r12-5524-g1598bd47b2a4a5f12b5a987d16d82634644db4b6
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102648
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103427
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
int*& is a reference to a pointer, and is perfectly valid.
You can't have a pointer to a reference (a reference isn't required to have any
storage, so taking the address of a reference doesn't make sense
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100465
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2021-05-07 00:00:00 |2021-11-25
--- Comment #6 from Jonath
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103429
Bug ID: 103429
Summary: Optimization of Auto-generated condition chain is not
giving good lookup tables.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyword
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103409
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
I'm going to bisect that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103429
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |tree-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103221
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Macleod ---
And BTW, we do this optimization, just not completely in evrp. EVRP removes
the extraneous | -128 since that is a range related action.
Constant propagation handles the propagation of the copy into the PH
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103417
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47256
--- Comment #7 from Richard Purdie
---
Thanks for the tip, we'll look into dropping it!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103415
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
__VA_OPT__ has been supported for a few more years, my change just added
support for stringification of __VA_OPT__...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103429
--- Comment #2 from Edward Rosten ---
It is doing if-to-switch, but only really with N=5, and only if force-inline is
set. I think this are two problems, one is that you need to force-inline in
order to trigger if-to-switch.
The other problem i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103414
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> Started with r10-2083-g8dc63166e0b85954.
Well, no, it did not start with the above commit.
At best, it was exposed by this commit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103412
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> Started with r10-2083-g8dc63166e0b85954.
No, it did not start with this commit.
It was exposed by this commit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103396
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Stubbs :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:58d50a5dd6344179eebaeb6fd2f895e59463cf74
commit r12-5525-g58d50a5dd6344179eebaeb6fd2f895e59463cf74
Author: Andrew Stubbs
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103396
Andrew Stubbs changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103429
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-25
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103425
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
In meanwhile other testers picked the revision and it seems that indeed only
benzen machine reports this (it is AMD EPYC 7702). So it looks
microarchitecture specific issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103415
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103227
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5bc4cb04127a4805b6228b0a6cbfebdbd61314d2
commit r12-5527-g5bc4cb04127a4805b6228b0a6cbfebdbd61314d2
Author: Martin Jambor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103428
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Parameter packs not |[11/12 Regression]
|e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93453
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yeah that looks better already, thanks. Please get rid of the debug stuff
still in here, and send to gcc-patches@?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103430
Bug ID: 103430
Summary: ICE in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.c:2975
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102454
--- Comment #6 from Arseny Solokha ---
Should this PR be closed now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103393
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103393
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Actually no, GET_MODE_SIZE in that case is the size of the whole operation.
To me the previous change looks extremely ARM specific with load lines in mind
which no other target has. If we want to support m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103409
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] 18% |[12 Regression] 18%
|S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103429
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
So it's very funny what's happening here. iftoswitch pass is called for all
e.g.
f_dispatch_always_inline<10>, f_dispatch_always_inline<9> and so on until
f_dispatch_always_inline<5> which is converted to swi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102213
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102213
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note GCC 10 did a sorry message:
sorry, unimplemented: 'virtual' 'consteval'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102454
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
I was leaving it to check if we needed to back port to 10.x as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103429
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103406
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6ea5fb3cc7f3cc9b731d72183c66c23543876f5a
commit r12-5529-g6ea5fb3cc7f3cc9b731d72183c66c23543876f5a
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102958
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-25
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102117
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103332
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103427
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-25
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103426
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56119
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103406
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|roger at nextmoves
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103345
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101608
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:82c3657dd74896b39937bb0a2aaeba9b8ca105fd
commit r12-5530-g82c3657dd74896b39937bb0a2aaeba9b8ca105fd
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98953
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|roger at nextmoveso
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99520
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103406
--- Comment #14 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
There is no reasonable definition of how operands of binary + map to
particular operands of a particular instruction and so no -f or -m option
could sensibly be defined for that. When th
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
