https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110563
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110515
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9f4f833455bb35c11d03e93f802604ac7cd8b740
commit r14-2344-g9f4f833455bb35c11d03e93f802604ac7cd8b740
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110515
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] |[12/13 Regression]
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110570
Bug ID: 110570
Summary: Error reading mutable subobject in constexpr when
object lifetime began within the evaluation of E
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110556
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110557
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110565
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |13.1.1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110566
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110568
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |c
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419
--- Comment #11 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 55486
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55486&action=edit
-m64tree optimized (at -O0) dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419
--- Comment #12 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 55487
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55487&action=edit
-m64 rtl expand dump at -O0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419
--- Comment #13 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 55488
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55488&action=edit
-m64 rtl final dump at -O0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419
--- Comment #14 from Mikael Morin ---
The tree optimized dumps are almost the same for 32 and 64 bits.
The expand dumps show more significant differences.
The 64 bits dump shows the register r4 is saved to memory with:
(insn 3 2 4 2 (set (m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110515
--- Comment #13 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
I confirm the change fixed llvm-15.0.7 test suite. Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110571
Bug ID: 110571
Summary: vect_determine_partial_vectors_and_peeling required at
vect_do_peeling time
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110557
avieira at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||avieira at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110557
--- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao ---
It looks like if !UNSIGNED_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (bf_ref)), we need to generate
something like:
masked = (the signed variant of the wider type in {type_out, type_container})
container << (bitpos + bitsize);
result =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110563
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:deebf06a1207bf7d84f4bebc462137d9436ee6dd
commit r14-2354-gdeebf06a1207bf7d84f4bebc462137d9436ee6dd
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110563
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54179
mmokrejs at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mmokrejs at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110572
Bug ID: 110572
Summary: ld.lld: error: duplicate symbol:
std::type_info::operator==(std::type_info const&)
const
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106895
--- Comment #9 from Nicholas Piggin ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
> (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5)
> > > Constraints are completely the wrong tool for this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110557
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Untested patch:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-patterns.cc b/gcc/tree-vect-patterns.cc
index de20e9d59cb..01df568ee61 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-vect-patterns.cc
+++ b/gcc/tree-vect-patterns.cc
@@ -2566,7 +2566,7 @@ vec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110572
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I would argue that the root cause is that Clang does not conform to the
platform ABI for mingw-w64, which requires __GXX_TYPEINFO_EQUALITY_INLINE=0 to
be defined.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110556
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110533
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-07-06
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110362
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|tree-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110572
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110572
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. this can be reproduced without clang, just by using -std=c++20
-static-libstdc++
/usr/bin/x86_64-w64-mingw32-ld:
/home/jwakely/gcc/mingw/lib/gcc/x86_64-w64-mingw32/13.0.1/../../../../x86_64-w64-mingw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110556
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7b16686ef882ab141276f0e36a9d4ce1d755f64a
commit r14-2363-g7b16686ef882ab141276f0e36a9d4ce1d755f64a
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106895
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Nicholas Piggin from comment #9)
> I don't know why constraint is wrong and mode is right
Simple: you would need O(2**T*N) constraints for our existing N register
constraints, together wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110573
Bug ID: 110573
Summary: MIPS64: Enhancement PR of load of pointer to atomic
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110573
--- Comment #1 from Luke Geeson ---
My apologies - I should have put the ld on the line with L7:
```
.L7:ld $3,%got_disp(P1_r0)($5).
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #95 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #93)
> (In reply to Alexander Klepikov from comment #92)
> > I remembered why I used two different insns - first to eliminate infinite
> > loop with help of marking insn with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110545
--- Comment #2 from Gejoe ---
No, they are not using dlopen.
The shared libraries are built and loaded during the program (image) loading.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110557
--- Comment #5 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi Xi,
Feel free to test your patch and submit it to the list for review. I had a look
over and it looks correct to me.
I feel like it also addresses the cases where the bitfield is 'sandwiched
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110574
Bug ID: 110574
Summary: --enable-cstdio=stdio_pure is incompatible with LFS
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104299
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110575
Bug ID: 110575
Summary: gcc: internal compiler error: tree check: expected
class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in
build_aligned_type
Product: gcc
Versi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110574
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b90a70984a9beee39b41f842b56926f9db2069ca
commit r14-2366-gb90a70984a9beee39b41f842b56926f9db2069ca
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110574
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Doh, I put the wrong PR number in that commit, it's meant to be for PR 104299
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104299
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:94d24f1af684d37b9e1c6ad9b54c98609140eb1f
commit r13-7537-g94d24f1af684d37b9e1c6ad9b54c98609140eb1f
Author: Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104299
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk and gcc-13 so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104299
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104299
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:67bda4331dc4f548820ed2f3138aa7f64fd4c77d
commit r12-9757-g67bda4331dc4f548820ed2f3138aa7f64fd4c77d
Author: Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110555
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-07-06
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110449
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:224fd59b2dc8a5fa78a309a09863afe9b3cf2111
commit r14-2367-g224fd59b2dc8a5fa78a309a09863afe9b3cf2111
Author: Hao Liu OS
Date: Thu Jul 6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110557
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110574
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> Using --enable-cstdio=stdio_pure on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu results in test
> failures:
>
> FAIL: 27_io/basic_filebuf/imbue/char/13171-2.cc execution test
> FAI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110557
--- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to avieira from comment #5)
> Hi Xi,
>
> Feel free to test your patch and submit it to the list for review. I had a
> look over and it looks correct to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110576
Bug ID: 110576
Summary: ICE on compilation
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25623
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3a61ca1b9256535e1bfb19b2d46cde21f3908a5d
commit r14-2369-g3a61ca1b9256535e1bfb19b2d46cde21f3908a5d
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Thu J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22401
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
This is now threaded by threadfull2:
Checking profitability of path (backwards): bb:3 (2 insns) bb:2
Control statement insns: 2
Overall: 0 insns
path: 2->3->xx REJECTED
Checking profitability of path (ba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110575
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110573
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
volatile (atomics) stores are not considered for branch delay slots.
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc/3077458.gu9dx72...@arcturus.home/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110573
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
See
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc/d7787b3f-9450-5642-ffac-21cf36176...@redhat.com/
also.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110574
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110577
Bug ID: 110577
Summary: s390x: Some tests fail with -march=z13
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110578
Bug ID: 110578
Summary: Support dynamic_cast within the analyzer
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: analyze
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110311
--- Comment #45 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 55492
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55492&action=edit
Smaller stand-alone reproducer
I will give more information in a comment, this contains 3 files and a
Makefil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110311
--- Comment #46 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #45)
> Created attachment 55492 [details]
> Smaller stand-alone reproducer
>
> I will give more information in a comment, this contains 3 files and a
> Makefile.
Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110579
Bug ID: 110579
Summary: O2, O1 opmtimizations cause a buffer overflow panic
during a strcpy
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110579
--- Comment #1 from Gabriel ---
Created attachment 55494
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55494&action=edit
Processed *.i files
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110579
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Could you give us a backtrace with -ggdb3 when it aborts at runtime?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110579
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 110579, which changed state.
Bug 110579 Summary: O2, O1 opmtimizations cause a buffer overflow panic during
a strcpy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110579
What|Removed |Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110579
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
All of these FORTIFY issues have been fixed for a long time now (over 10
years).
Why are you trying to use an old version of gnu tar?
e.g. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-tar/2010-02/msg00010.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110501
--- Comment #6 from Cheyenne Wills ---
Just another bit of information.
Specifying just -Werror=use-after-free appears to be not not enough to trigger
the problem. Using -Wall however does trigger the problem.
(tried on gcc-12 and gcc-13)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110579
--- Comment #5 from Gabriel ---
I see. That makes sense.
Our research project has a dataset with tar 1.14. Our plan is to compare our
work with existing work in the dataset and to be consistent, use tar 1.14. We
noticed our binary compiled with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110540
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-07-06
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110311
--- Comment #47 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #46)
> The issue goes away with -O0, with -O1 and with -O2 -fno-tree-vectorize.
> I might want to find the offending commit in the week of June 12-19 in t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110539
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110311
--- Comment #48 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #47)
> However, when I use -O2 together with an -march= flag, the code works.
> I've tested -march=sandybridge, -march=haswell, -march=skylake,
> -march=native.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110539
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
So the difference comes from the order. Before in phiopt we had:
- /* Defer boolean x ? 0 : {1,-1} or x ? {1,-1} : 0 to
- match_simplify_replacement. */
- if (TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (lhs)) == BOOLEAN_TY
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110539
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is a testcase for the missing optimization (at -O1) which is optimized at
the RTL level (for some targets but not all):
```
int f(int a)
{
int b = a & 1;
int c = b != 0;
return c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110580
Bug ID: 110580
Summary: [14 Regression] gcc fails to typecheck nix-2.16.1
source: error: invalid initialization of reference of
type
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81880
Timothee Besset changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ttimo at valvesoftware dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110539
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
yes adding:
/* (convert)(zeroone != 0) into (convert)zeroone */
/* (convert)(zeroone == 0) into ((convert)zeroone)^1 */
(for neeq (ne eq)
(simplify
(convert (neeq zero_one_valued_p@0 integer_zerop))
(if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110539
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> yes adding:
> /* (convert)(zeroone != 0) into (convert)zeroone */
> /* (convert)(zeroone == 0) into ((convert)zeroone)^1 */
> (for neeq (ne eq)
> (simplify
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110573
--- Comment #4 from Luke Geeson ---
Ah so since atomics are treated as volatile (like LLVM) instructions that
access them cannot inhabit a delay slot. Is it still valid to treat atomics as
volatile?
Consider the following MIPS litmus test:
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110573
--- Comment #5 from Luke Geeson ---
For the record the %registers are symbolic - simply replace them with concrete
ones containing the location x,y,etc...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110573
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Luke Geeson from comment #4)
> I understand treating atomics as volatile has historical precedent but a
> case can be made, at least on modern architectures and with improved
> understanding of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106895
--- Comment #11 from Nicholas Piggin ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #10)
> (In reply to Nicholas Piggin from comment #9)
> > I don't know why constraint is wrong and mode is right
>
> Simple: you would need O(2**T*N) constrain
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110538
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110538
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
So dom3 was able to optimize that via a jump threading before in GCC 13 but no
longer on the trunk (I don't understand why though).
Anyways the only pass which is able to optimize:
```
int f123(int a, int c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
--- Comment #8 from YunQiang Su ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> The initial RTL has a signed extend in there:
>
>
> (insn 20 19 23 2 (set (reg/v:DI 200 [ val+-4 ])
> (sign_extend:DI (subreg:SI (reg/v:DI 200 [ val+-4 ]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67736
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55496
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55496&action=edit
old patch against GCC 4.7
I am trying to find my notes on this old patch but our internal bug system has
move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> Created attachment 55496 [details]
> old patch against GCC 4.7
>
> I am trying to find my notes on this old patch but our internal bug system
> has moved a fe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> But I don't have any other notes on my change (nor a testcase).
So I found some notes and it is similar but still different.
We were expanding:
;; insn.j_form
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110574
--- Comment #5 from keithp at keithp dot com ---
Seems like using fseeko would be a reasonable choice here -- while it's not in
ISO C, it is in POSIX 2017.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96638
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #7 from Andr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96638
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96637
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 96638 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90658
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.4|13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96546
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90658
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anbu1024.me at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109874
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
