https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111313
Li Pan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111317
Bug ID: 111317
Summary: RISC-V: Incorrect COST model for RVV conversions
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111318
Bug ID: 111318
Summary: RISC-V: Redundant vsetvl instructions
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56289
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Gayathri Gottumukkala from comment #5)
> We cannot cast the two variables in single line using void.
That's not what the code is trying to do.
> Instead of that
> we have to use void for two
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111319
Bug ID: 111319
Summary: Wrong code at -O2 on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111319
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
int *h = g;
h--;
is undefined right away ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111320
Bug ID: 111320
Summary: RISC-V: Failed combine extend + vfwredosum
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111321
Bug ID: 111321
Summary: Segmentation fault with associate construct
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111321
--- Comment #1 from Alexandre Poux ---
Created attachment 55848
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55848&action=edit
a program triggering the segmentation fault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111311
--- Comment #3 from JuzheZhong ---
Confirm master GCC FAILs:
gcc FAILs: 166
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr53645-2.c -O2 -flto -fuse-linker-plugin
-fno-fat-lto-objects (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr53645.c -O2 -flt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111252
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5b857e87201335148f23ec7134cf7fbf97c04c72
commit r14-3773-g5b857e87201335148f23ec7134cf7fbf97c04c72
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date: Tue Sep 5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111319
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also comparing unrelated addresses with >= is undefined.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111319
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111252
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111319
--- Comment #4 from Shaohua Li ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #3)
> Please try not to create more reports with "not sure if there is UB" esp.
> this UB should be obvious, and it's also detectable with
> -fsanitize=undefined:
>
> t.c:13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111322
Bug ID: 111322
Summary: non-canonical reference to canonical protected
function `__pthread_key_create'
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111322
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
uclibc should 100% not be defining __GLIBC__ at all ..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111322
--- Comment #2 from Chris Packham ---
I don't disagree but it appears to have been that way for some time. There are
other instances of the __GLIBC__ && !__UCLIBC__ in other corners
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111323
Bug ID: 111323
Summary: [RISC_V] During Insmod "unknown relocation type 57"
type in kernel space observed
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111324
Bug ID: 111324
Summary: More optimization about "(X * Y) / Y"
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111324
--- Comment #1 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
In match.pd, there is a pattern:
/* Simplify (t * 2) / 2) -> t. */
(for div (trunc_div ceil_div floor_div round_div exact_div)
(simplify
(div (mult:c @0 @1) @1)
(if (ANY_INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type))
(if (T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111322
Waldemar Brodkorb changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wbx at openadk dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #111 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:18c90eaa25363d34b5bef444fbbad04f5da2522d
commit r14-3774-g18c90eaa25363d34b5bef444fbbad04f5da2522d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111310
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, there is no guarantee that _BitInt(32) or _BitInt(64) are
passed/returned/laid out exactly like int32_t or int64_t (ditto for 8 and 16
bits), but on the current single target which supports them it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111325
Bug ID: 111325
Summary: config/acx.m4: _FOR_TARGET are not usable at top
level
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109773
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110560
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111323
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111074
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111037
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110299
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110277
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111315
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=107800
Amatul Adeeba changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amatuladeeba at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111315
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111326
Bug ID: 111326
Summary: [14 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression since
r14-376-g47a76439911
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108827
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The new bind_back call wrapper still needs to be added (which will need to be
done before https://wg21.link/p2714r1 can be implemented for C++26).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107800
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
What is not working?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111321
Patrick Kopper changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kopper at iag dot
uni-stuttgart.de
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111327
Bug ID: 111327
Summary: std::bind_front doesn't perfectly forward according to
value category of the call wrapper object
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111326
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111225
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f7bca44d97ad01b39f9d6e7809df7bf517eeb2fb
commit r14-3783-gf7bca44d97ad01b39f9d6e7809df7bf517eeb2fb
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95751
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110773
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111263
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
No, that is not failing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111328
Bug ID: 111328
Summary: ICE: verify_flow_info failed since
r14-3459-g0c78240fd7d
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109948
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alexandre.poux at coria dot f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111321
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109948
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|13.2|13.3
--- Comment #23 from an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111044
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Additionally: OpenMP states for omp_init_allocator:
"if an allocator based on the requirements cannot be created then the special
omp_null_allocator handle is returned."
libgomp's routine currently only re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111274
--- Comment #12 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Improved and tested patch posted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-September/629616.html
IIUC the temporaries introduced in non-full-expressions are bound in a block
that enc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
--- Comment #14 from François Dumont ---
Good news then.
On my side I only had some failures due to a faulty friend declaration in
gnu-versioned-namespace mode in for which I've submitted a patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/2023-Au
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #13)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #12)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #11)
> > > (In reply to François Dumont from comment #10)
> > > > This is becau
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
--- Comment #16 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to François Dumont from comment #14)
> Good news then.
>
> On my side I only had some failures due to a faulty friend declaration in
> gnu-versioned-namespace mode in for which I've submitted a pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
--- Comment #17 from François Dumont ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #15)
>
> many of the c++ fails are of this form:
>
> contracts-tmpl-spec1.C:(.text+0x6f): undefined reference to
> `handle_contract_violation(std::experimental::cont
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
--- Comment #18 from Iain Sandoe ---
for changes to libstdc++ or the FE I usually run "make check-c++" which does
the library (plus the libgomp and itm deps) and the FE.
My guess is that the FE is referencing something that needs to have an inli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111274
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sandra Loosemore :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ab4bdad49716eb1c60e22e0e617d5eb56b0bac6f
commit r14-3791-gab4bdad49716eb1c60e22e0e617d5eb56b0bac6f
Author: Sandra Loosemore
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111274
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111329
Bug ID: 111329
Summary: [14 regression]
gcc.dg/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-1-debug.c fails
after r14-3745-g4f4fa2501186e4
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to François Dumont from comment #17)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #15)
Your proposed patch for the friend issue does fix the libstdc++ cases for my
Darwin patchset.
> > many of the c++ f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111329
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111226
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97122
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111329
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Possibly another duplicate of bug 110483.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111328
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111324
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110875
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cf2ae3fff4ee9bf884b122ee6cd83bffd791a16f
commit r14-3792-gcf2ae3fff4ee9bf884b122ee6cd83bffd791a16f
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111329
--- Comment #3 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It is the one that appears to trigger this failure, though. And as for being a
duplicate of that other one I see this on both powerpc64 BE and LE.
git bisect log
git bisect start
# good: [1b4c7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110875
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111329
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111330
Bug ID: 111330
Summary: [13 Regression] Bootstrap failure building SeqFile.lo
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108957
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Mikael,
are you still onto it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111331
Bug ID: 111331
Summary: Wrong code at -O1 on x86_64-linux-gnu since
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111331
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102317
--- Comment #12 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Kees Cook from comment #11)
> The trouble with "optimize" is that it just doesn't work. The kernel has
> banned its use because it results in all other optimization options being
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110830
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Benjamin Priour :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7d2274b9e346f44f8f6598b9dbb9fa95259274a2
commit r14-3794-g7d2274b9e346f44f8f6598b9dbb9fa95259274a2
Author: benjamin priour
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111331
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
For the trunk:
```
phiopt match-simplify trying:
_3 > 28 ? _9 : 29
Applying pattern match.pd:5446, gimple-match-3.cc:3125
phiopt match-simplify back:
_5 = MAX_EXPR <_9, 29>;
result: _5
accepted the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111331
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
For the trunk the problem is in match (and phiopt)
Match pattern:
/* Optimize (a CMP CST1) ? max : a */
r6-7425-ga9fee7cdc3c62d0e51730b6a9814909c557d3070 most likely introduced it for
GCC 6.
For the trun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111331
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced testcase:
```
int a;
int b;
int main() {
int d = b+30;
{
int t;
if (d < 29)
t = 29;
else
t = (d > 28) ? 28 : d;
a = t;
}
volatile int t = a;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111331
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||14.0
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110529
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1b761fede44afac5fa72e77caced9beda93fb381
commit r14-3796-g1b761fede44afac5fa72e77caced9beda93fb381
Author: David Malcolm
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110529
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The one which I had missed:
_Bool f(int x, int y, int w, int z)
{
_Bool a = z == w;
_Bool b = x == y;
return (a & !b) | (a ^ b); // a ^ b
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111331
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111331
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111332
Bug ID: 111332
Summary: Using GCC7.3.0 and GCC10.3.0 to compile the same test
case, assembler file instructions are different and
performance fallback is obvious.
Product:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111332
d_vampile changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d_vampile at 163 dot com
--- Comment #1 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111332
--- Comment #2 from d_vampile ---
gcc7.3.0 program use vmovups and vmovups instructions , but gcc10.3.0 program
only use vmovups instructions.In addition, the order of the two assembly
instructions is not consistent.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111333
Bug ID: 111333
Summary: Runtime failure for fcmulcph instrinsic
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111332
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.4.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111333
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
fmulcph/fmaddcph is commutative for operands[1] and operands[2], but
fcmulcph/fcmaddcph is not, since it's Complex conjugate operations.
Below change fixes the issue.
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/sse.md b/gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111333
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
The test failed since GCC12 when the pattern is added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111332
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111333
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Isn't this a dup of bug 111306 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111333
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111306
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111306
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111331
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
The tree-ssa-phiopt.cc code is much more complex.
But not testing arg_true/arg_false against alt_larger/alt_smaller does fix the
issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111332
--- Comment #5 from d_vampile ---
According to the analysis, the following two prs may cause the preceding
problems:
PR1:https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/dd9b529f08c3c6064c37234922d298336d78caf7
PR2:https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111332
--- Comment #6 from d_vampile ---
GCC 7.3.0 produces:
extern __inline __m256i __attribute__((__gnu_inline__, __always_inline__,
__artificial__))
_mm256_loadu_si256 (__m256i_u const *__P)
{
return *__P;
401170: c5 fa 6f 1e v
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
