https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110295
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:963f87f8a65ec82f503ac4334a3da83b0a8a43b2
commit r14-1958-g963f87f8a65ec82f503ac4334a3da83b0a8a43b2
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110295
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||14.0
Summary|[10/11/12/13/1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110311
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #2 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109541
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13 regression] ICE in |[12 regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110311
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Summary|[gfortran 14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110312
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-06-20
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92887
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #6)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #5)
> > (In reply to anlauf from comment #4)
> > > @@ -6396,7 +6399,28 @@ gfc_conv_procedure_call (gfc_se * se, gfc_symbol *
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110313
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110011
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bccc9960eb728bfd890c9388593bd166efcd0591
commit r11-10865-gbccc9960eb728bfd890c9388593bd166efcd0591
Author: Kewen Lin
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109932
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:db291447877aae67979ce3655fcc6fc877f57c6a
commit r11-10866-gdb291447877aae67979ce3655fcc6fc877f57c6a
Author: Kewen Lin
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110228
--- Comment #17 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Phiopt does this:
> ```
> v_13 == 1 ? 1 : LookupFlags_6
> Matching expression match.pd:1990, gimple-match-5.cc:23
> Matching expression match.pd:1990, gi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78405
Artem S. Tashkinov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79704
Bug 79704 depends on bug 78405, which changed state.
Bug 78405 Summary: OpenSSL v1.0.1g RSA 4096 test is 20% slower under GCC 6.2
than under Clang 3.9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78405
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110307
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
It's not necessary yet for this particular bug, but might be helpful for future
bugs (if disk space is not an issue).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91804
Ajit Kumar Agarwal changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aagarwa at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110313
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Stubbs ---
This ICE also affect the following standalone test failures (raw amdgcn, no
offloading):
gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_21.f90
gfortran.dg/finalize_38.f90
gfortran.dg/finalize_38a.f90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110313
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109932
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:98763feef24b58573fa9e6c6eedaccc1e932bb46
commit r10-11455-g98763feef24b58573fa9e6c6eedaccc1e932bb46
Author: Kewen Lin
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110313
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Stubbs ---
It's curious that this affects the Fiji target only, and not the newer targets
at all.
There are some additional register options for multiply instructions, some
differences to atomics, but mostly the diffe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109932
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Hi Neil,
Thanks for posting this bug report.
> !x%var_ptr() = 2.0 ! THIS IS NOT REJECTED AS EXPECTED
Why do you think that this should be rejected? As I understood it, this was
permitted by the definition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110237
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110308
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
: zlib
gcc version 14.0.0 20230620 (experimental) [master r14-924-gd709841ae0f] (GCC)
[512] %
[512] % gcctk -O2 -fno-tree-pre -fno-tree-dce -fno-tree-dse
-fselective-scheduling2 small.c
during RTL pass: sched2
small.c: In function ‘main’:
small.c:19:1: internal compiler error: in move_exprs_to_bounda
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110308
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110311
--- Comment #3 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I redid this change here:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc
index
e1c75e9fe0266d760b635f0dc7869a00ce53bf48..e7c51bae052b1e0e3a60dee35484c093d28d4653
100644 (file)
--- a/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110251
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrew.carlotti at arm dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110251
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 109858, which changed state.
Bug 109858 Summary: [14 Regression] r14-172 caused some SPEC2017 bmk to degrade
on Power
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109858
What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109858
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110318
Bug ID: 110318
Summary: Unused string literal is retained in assembler file
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110318
--- Comment #1 from Roland Illig ---
A variant on the same theme:
~~~c
typedef typeof(sizeof 0) size_t;
int memcmp(const void *, const void *, size_t);
int demo(const char *s) {
if (memcmp(s, "12345678", 8) == 0)
return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110318
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note I suspect the linker will remove unused strings in the final executable
though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110318
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110177
--- Comment #3 from Theodoros Theodoridis ---
I think the correct bisection is: r11-3063-gfcae5121154 (or its parent
r11-3062-g90e88fd376b)
I can't build its parent but with its grandparent r11-3061-g1644d7f4c1c the
call to foo is eliminated:
g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #83 from Alexander Klepikov
---
Created attachment 55367
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55367&action=edit
Collapsed libcall and additional loop move invariants patch v3
I digged other targets and I found that c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110237
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> This looks like the same issue as PR110309. We have
>
> (insn 38 35 39 3 (set (mem:V16SI (plus:DI (reg:DI 40 r12 [orig:90 _22 ] [90])
> (const:D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
--- Comment #4 from Neil Carlson ---
Hi Paul,
> !x%var_ptr() = 2.0 ! THIS IS NOT REJECTED AS EXPECTED
I could have phrased the comment better. I expected that assignment to be okay
(i.e., not rejected) and it wasn't. Sorry for the confusion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
--- Comment #5 from Neil Carlson ---
>> !x%var_ptr() = 2.0 ! THIS IS NOT REJECTED AS EXPECTED
>
> I could have phrased the comment better. I expected that assignment to be okay
> (i.e., not rejected) and it wasn't. Sorry for the confusion.
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110319
Bug ID: 110319
Summary: Performance slowdown using a pointer to perform a
reduction vs. using a normal variable
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110237
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 20 Jun 2023, crazylht at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110237
>
> --- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110318
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110317
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |13.1.1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108961
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 55368
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55368&action=edit
Fix for this PR
I couldn't see what the problem was initially and so I put this PR to one side.
I still have it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110320
Bug ID: 110320
Summary: ELFv2 pc-rel ABI extension allows using r2 as a
volatile register
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110320
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jeevitha at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Neil Carlson from comment #5)
> >> !x%var_ptr() = 2.0 ! THIS IS NOT REJECTED AS EXPECTED
> >
> > I could have phrased the comment better. I expected that assignment to be
> > okay
> > (i.e., no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110256
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110198
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Benjamin Priour from comment #2)
> Yes sorry for the regression. I confirmed it myself too on x86_64-linux-gnu.
> I wrote a fix immediately yesterday, and I am currently regtesting it.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
--- Comment #7 from Neil Carlson ---
> Was it as a result of the nagfor error, perhaps? If so, have you already sent
> them a bug report?
I actually didn't originally try that commented-out assignment with nagfor, but
confirm that it gets it w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110172
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Quoting:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Code-Gen-Options.html#index-fexceptions
"""
-fexceptions
Enable exception handling. Generates extra code needed to propagate
exceptions. For some targets, th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110198
--- Comment #4 from Benjamin Priour ---
Yes, has been fixed and regtested a week ago. However I was in vacation
last week.
I will submit it shortly. though I would prefer to perform another
regtesting on a freshly pulled trunk first.
Benjamin.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110308
--- Comment #7 from manolis.tsamis at vrull dot eu ---
Some context for the commit:
This change is originally part of an late rtl pass to optimize memory accesses.
There are a lot of cases (especially involving local arrays) that generate
redunt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110308
--- Comment #8 from ptomsich at gcc dot gnu.org ---
@mtsamis: Could you attach the proposed patch as an attachment (to allow easy
application and testing that this resolves the ICE)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110308
ptomsich at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110308
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Right. It's fairly common with fold-mem-offsets to end up rewriting the
address arithmetic such that we'll have an sp->gpr copy of some sort in the IL.
We'd really like to be able to cprop that copy away.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110308
--- Comment #10 from manolis.tsamis at vrull dot eu ---
Created attachment 55369
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55369&action=edit
ICE-fix-proposal-1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110321
Bug ID: 110321
Summary: Double precision comaprison does not seem to work well
when -std=c++17 option is selected
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110321
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
As described in the manual, sincve GCC 13.1 -fexcess-precision=standard is
enabled by -std=c++NN (but not by -std=gnu++NN).
This means the literal 2.2 is represented with excess precision, and so is not
e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110321
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110321
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110172
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110313
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manolis.tsamis at vrull dot eu
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110172
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I mentioned that on IRC. I'm not sure glibc can even handle exceptions from
those functions. Is that supported at all? Does printf clean up its own
allocations and locks in that case? IMHO it should be UB
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110322
Bug ID: 110322
Summary: Be more helpful when a varargs function is called in a
wrong way
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110172
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> I mentioned that on IRC. I'm not sure glibc can even handle exceptions from
> those functions. Is that supported at all? Does printf clean up its own
> allocations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
Hi Neil,
> I actually didn't originally try that commented-out assignment with nagfor,
> but confirm that it gets it wrong as you said. I'll give you the honor of
> submitting a bug report.
Will do!
>
> na
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110313
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Stubbs ---
One thing that is unusual about the GCN stack pointer is that it's actually two
registers. Could this be breaking some cprop assumptions?
GCN can't fit an address in one (SImode) register so all (DImode) po
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110323
Bug ID: 110323
Summary: Code for explicit instantiation of template method of
template class
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110172
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110237
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #5)
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2023, crazylht at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110237
> >
> > --- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110323
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110276
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0be3a051c03965c5c0385b783837154902bc08fa
commit r14-1998-g0be3a051c03965c5c0385b783837154902bc08fa
Author: Martin Jambor
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110324
Bug ID: 110324
Summary: [14 Regression][bootstrap, nvptx] build/genpreds:
Internal error: RTL check: expected elt 2 type 'T',
have 's' due to r14-1949-g957ae904065917
Produ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110321
--- Comment #4 from Serge Ayoun ---
Thanks guys for your help
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110325
Bug ID: 110325
Summary: [14 regression] Build failure on arm64
(libiberty/physmem.c:83:1: error: ‘+nofp’ feature
modifier is incompatible with the use of
floating-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110325
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 55373
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55373&action=edit
build.lo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109943
--- Comment #2 from Theodoros Theodoridis ---
Not sure if it's useful but the following also started with the same commit:
https://godbolt.org/z/Tqha4K976
Given the following code:
void foo(void);
static int d, e, h;
static int *f = &e, *q;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110322
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||87403
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110322
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-06-20
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110322
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note -Wformat-nonliteral is not enabled by default either (though IIRC Debian
and Ubuntu turn it on by default).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
--- Comment #9 from Neil Carlson ---
>
> (i) Have I got the lot?
>
I believe so.
> (ii) Are there existing PRs for the two most recent?
>
I always try to report the bugs at the same time they go into my
"database". The first is here:
https:/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110325
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
What is the host compiler?
It is the host compiler that is failing with -mcpu=native.
Can you add -v to the failing command in
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-14.0.0./work/build/build-aarch64-unknown-li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110307
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov ---
Cross-compiler needs HAVE_AS_EXPLICIT_RELOCS=1.
With checking enabled, we get:
t.c:8:1: error: flow control insn inside a basic block
(call_insn 97 96 98 4 (parallel [
(set (reg:DI 0 $0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110325
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Host compiler is:
```
gcc (Gentoo 14.0.0 p, commit f9de5c24b9a6172d48786289035eed8f947c04c1) 14.0.0
20230616 (experimental) a371a639b76f1bdcd7a957f400b5a7c0faf30a15
Copyright (C) 2023 Free Software Foundation, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110314
Marc Poulhiès changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110326
Bug ID: 110326
Summary: [gcc 14.0 regression]
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110325
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110325
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
>-march=armv8.2-a+crc+profile+nofp+nolse+nordma
This seems totally wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110314
--- Comment #1 from Marc Poulhiès ---
This is new in 14, was OK when forking 13.
https://ada.godbolt.org/z/TvbPxYfnP
Currently bisecting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110324
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
In the debugger for 'convert_syntax', it fails immediately. The caller is:
1055case DEFINE_COND_EXEC:
1056 convert_syntax (desc, loc);
(gdb) p debug_rtx(desc)
(define_cond_exec [
(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110325
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 55374
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55374&action=edit
/proc/cpuinfo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110325
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110297
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:efecb298d880cda20f8d7bea2d7b500a9752ce56
commit r14-1999-gefecb298d880cda20f8d7bea2d7b500a9752ce56
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110297
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4ac89ab35884906900cde8172d2db74e1d913fec
commit r13-7459-g4ac89ab35884906900cde8172d2db74e1d913fec
Author: Ian Lance Ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110318
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||7.1.0, 9.1.0
--- Comment #5 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #84 from Alexander Klepikov
---
I've forgot to say that first I ran all tests with SH specific loop
optimization enabled when condition 'optimize && flag_move_loop_invariants' is
true. And only then I ran all tests with final (at the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110324
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
BTW, regarding: type 'T', have 's'
/* Indexed by rtx code, gives a sequence of operand-types for
rtx's of that code. The sequence is a C string in which
each character describes one operand. */
co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110284
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|CLOSED |REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110318
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
1 - 100 of 174 matches
Mail list logo
