https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111970
--- Comment #14 from JuzheZhong ---
Just confirm on aarch64 QEMU, it seems that ARM SVE has the same issue as RVV.
This is the test:
#include
#define TEST_LOOP(DATA_TYPE, INDEX_TYPE)
\
void __attribute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111554
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Maxim Kuvyrkov from comment #10)
> This is, mostly, a dup of PR96388.
> With the problem in PR96388 fixed, I'm seeing strange -ftime-report
> reporting that [wrongly?] attributes a lot of time
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111970
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 20 Nov 2023, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111970
>
> --- Comment #11 from JuzheZhong ---
> Hi, Richard.
>
> I come back to revisit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112582
--- Comment #2 from Anonymous ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> .cfi_def_cfa_offset 32
> .loc 1 27 5 view .LVU27
> movl$-5, %eax
> .loc 1 28 5 view .LVU28
> movl$-10, %edx
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111970
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
The IL I see for f_int16_t_int8_t on aarch64 looks OK to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112582
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
I think that's deficiencies in the debugger, IIRC GCC is providing some extra
info here that it doesn't (yet) evaluate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90693
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d0b6b7f8a6b8115b033441590a6304fb088d193c
commit r14-5612-gd0b6b7f8a6b8115b033441590a6304fb088d193c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90693
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:103a3966bc7b68f91b6cd3c5beb330c4b8570c90
commit r14-5613-g103a3966bc7b68f91b6cd3c5beb330c4b8570c90
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112634
Bug ID: 112634
Summary: [13 Regression][OpenMP][-fprofile-generate] ICE in
verify_gimple for gcc.dg/gomp/pr27573.c:
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112582
--- Comment #4 from Anonymous ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> I think that's deficiencies in the debugger, IIRC GCC is providing some
> extra info here that it doesn't (yet) evaluate.
Thanks, Richard. I will take a look on th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112582
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112600
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Note we don't have a good middle-end representation for (integer) saturation.
Maybe having variants of .ADD_OVERFLOW and friends specifying an alternate
value (or the value in case the actual value is left
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112406
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Robin Dapp :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f25a5b199a0ebd4695466e665e49041339f0c6a7
commit r14-5614-gf25a5b199a0ebd4695466e665e49041339f0c6a7
Author: Robin Dapp
Date: Fri No
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112601
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112582
--- Comment #6 from Anonymous ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #5)
> (IIRC = if I recall correctly)
Ah, that explains why my search for "IIRC GCC" on Google didn't yield any
relevant results. Thank you for pointing that out. 😄
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112563
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, following patch
--- libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_redefine_builtins.h.jj
2023-11-15 17:19:11.512783752 +0100
+++ libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_redefine_builtins.h 2023-11-19
22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112610
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.4
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112612
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112634
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Sum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112616
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112617
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112583
JuzheZhong changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112618
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112597
JuzheZhong changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112619
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108473
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111309
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112622
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108473
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #3)
> Have those patches been upstreamed?
A bunch of them are cherry-picks either from Bugzilla proper or Mozilla's fork
(yes really) of it but Bugzilla development has b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112635
Bug ID: 112635
Summary: stack smash protection does not work when code is
compiled with -O
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112623
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112627
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-11-20
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112630
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112635
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libgcc |tree-optimization
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112635
--- Comment #2 from Agostino Sarubbo ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Yep, GCC fixes the code for you by eliding 'buf'. That's perfectly OK though
> since the code invokes undefined behavior.
>
> I'm inclined to close this as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108473
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #4)
> (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #3)
> > Have those patches been upstreamed?
>
> A bunch of them are cherry-picks either from Bugzilla proper or Mozilla's
> fork
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112636
Bug ID: 112636
Summary: ICE on valid code at -O1 (but not at -O{0,s,2,3}) with
"-ftree-vectorize": in adjust_loop_info_after_peeling,
at tree-ssa-loop-ivcanon.cc:1069
Produ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112541
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|armv8l-unknown-linux-gnueab |
|ihf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112630
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112541
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96388
--- Comment #16 from Maxim Kuvyrkov ---
Posted patch in
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/637419.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111554
--- Comment #12 from Maxim Kuvyrkov ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> (In reply to Maxim Kuvyrkov from comment #10)
> > This is, mostly, a dup of PR96388.
> > With the problem in PR96388 fixed, I'm seeing strange -ftime-report
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112634
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sebastian.huber@embedded-br
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112634
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
That's r14-5578-ga350a74d6113e3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112281
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
So the aggregate vs part of aggregate access is to confuse the cost modeling
(prevent merging of the partitions due to shared memory references) only.
With a GIMPLE testcase and commenting out the cost mod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112634
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
Breakpoint 6, gen_assign_counter_update (gsi=0x7fffcab0,
call=0x77230b48, func=0x7736cb00, result=0x77200b98, name=0x258f5f2
"PROF_time_profile") at ../../../repos/gcc/gcc/tree-profile.cc:247
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112636
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112637
Bug ID: 112637
Summary: Bogus -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112563
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Note, following patch
[...]
> passed bootstrap/regtest for me on x86_64-linux and i686-linux and didn't
> create any new memset/memcpy/memmove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112597
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pan Li :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a27f587816b6c3b8e46e4e46777abdc915ae00aa
commit r14-5624-ga27f587816b6c3b8e46e4e46777abdc915ae00aa
Author: Juzhe-Zhong
Date: Mon Nov 20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112596
--- Comment #2 from Veeraraghavan Sekar ---
Okay thanks @Jonathan for your comments. Code works during some examples with
GCC11.4 but fails some case with above shared error. You have common reason on
what cause
_Unwind_Resume and _Unwind_Rais
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112622
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b7a1b89e60c4b492f85b47e02c12b01dd8a6e28b
commit r14-5625-gb7a1b89e60c4b492f85b47e02c12b01dd8a6e28b
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112281
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3b34902417259031823bff7f853f615a60464bbd
commit r14-5626-g3b34902417259031823bff7f853f615a60464bbd
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112618
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:57c028acbec4f7b594e6b024e02d6c799b51e03d
commit r14-5627-g57c028acbec4f7b594e6b024e02d6c799b51e03d
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112281
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||14.0
Summary|[12/13/14 Regr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112618
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112622
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110415
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90693
--- Comment #6 from Wilco ---
Thanks Jakub - with the 2nd patch we get the expected sequence on AArch64:
sub x1, x0, #1
eor x0, x0, x1
cmp x0, x1
csetx0, hi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111970
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so for RISC-V with the testcase from the description there's the
following issue:
_179 = &MEM [(uint8_t *)_618];
_225 = BIT_FIELD_REF [(uint8_t *)_179], 8,
16>;
...
vect__8.9_405 = {_218, _224
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112638
Bug ID: 112638
Summary: ICE: in add_dwarf_attr, at dwarf2out.cc:4501
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112633
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112639
Bug ID: 112639
Summary: Incorrect handling of __builtin_c[lt]zg argument
side-effects
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112639
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112632
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83324
--- Comment #11 from David Edelsohn ---
GIMPLE supports must_tail, but it is not exposed at the sources level /
attributes in GCC.
CPython is not adding the LLVM JIT at runtime. The proposal is to utilize LLVM
at build time to generate code tem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112639
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 56650
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56650&action=edit
gcc14-pr112639.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112640
Bug ID: 112640
Summary: [14 regression] Failed bootstrap on arm64
(libgcc/config/libbid/bid128_fma.c:3569:1: internal
compiler error: in extract_base_offset_in_addr, at
ble-vtable-verify --disable-libvtv --with-zstd --without-isl
--enable-default-pie --enable-host-pie --enable-host-bind-now
--enable-default-ssp --with-build-config='bootstrap-O3 bootstrap-lto'
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 14.0.0 20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112638
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112640
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112640
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 56651
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56651&action=edit
bid128_fma.i
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-14.0.0./work/build/./gcc/xgcc
-B/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-14.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111970
--- Comment #18 from Robin Dapp ---
I did a quick testsuite run on rv32 and can confirm that this fixes the issue
for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112641
Bug ID: 112641
Summary: : `drop_view::begin const` has (n)
complexity
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112642
Bug ID: 112642
Summary: ranges::fold_left tries to access inactive union
member of string in constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112640
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 56652
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56652&action=edit
reduced.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112641
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112642
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112640
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #1)
> r14-5595-g06e7cc79fd3b1b built OK last, I think, and
> r14-5606-ge85c596ae2d1e5 is what failed.
My last build is r14-5590-g9d58d2d8ba290d and r14-5606-ge85c596ae2d1e5 i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112563
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The __builtin_mem* redirections actually don't seem to be necessary (at least
for me on x86_64-linux), though I certainly don't see any messages about
ignoring something.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112642
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Further reduced:
#include
using namespace std::literals;
template
constexpr auto
fold2(T init)
{ return std::move(init); }
template
constexpr auto
fold(T init)
{ return fold2(std::move(init)); }
cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112583
--- Comment #3 from Robin Dapp ---
I cannot reproduce this either. Just started with binop/* and don't see any
fails locally. Patrick, could you check what caused this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112592
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That seems like a backend bug.
pa_scalar_mode_supported_p returns true for TARGET_64BIT && mode == TImode, but
MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE macro doesn't reflect that and is still using the default
definition of GET_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112506
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
is your file system "default" (i.e. case-preserving-case-insensitive) on the
source code volume?
If so, those fails look suspiciously similar to the ones I see - reposted in
PR111627.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112506
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
with a case sensitive source partition on x86_64-darwin12, (I think these have
also been reported, but cannot find the pR right now):
=== gm2 tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: gm2/iso/run/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112640
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89316
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #14 from Uroš Bizjak --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112642
--- Comment #3 from Miro Palmu ---
Further reduced:
#include
using namespace std::literals;
consteval void bar() {
auto _ = [](auto s) { return s; }(""s);
}
int main() {
bar();
return 0;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111309
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Does
2023-11-20 Jakub Jelinek
PR c/111309
* c-c++-common/pr111309-2.c (foo): Don't expect errors for C++ with
-fshort-enums if second argument is E0.
--- gcc/testsuite/c-c++-comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90693
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112642
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |c++
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112596
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Veeraraghavan Sekar from comment #2)
> You have common reason on what cause
>
> _Unwind_Resume and _Unwind_RaiseException_Phase2?
I don't understand the question. Those functions are used
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112583
--- Comment #4 from Patrick O'Neill ---
Investigating this now. I'll let you know what I find out.
All these tests were run in the same environment so be wary when looking at any
of them until I figure out the environment issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112562
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So does this fix it?
2023-11-20 Jakub Jelinek
PR sanitizer/112562
* sanitizer_common/sanitizer_asm.h (ASM_TYPE_FUNCTION): Use @function
rather than %function except on arm/aarch6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108865
--- Comment #45 from Costas Argyris ---
Created attachment 56653
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56653&action=edit
Introduce configure option --disable-win32-utf8-manifest
Thanks for the pointers.
I attach a patch that dis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112561
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112552
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70
--- Comment #8 from Costas Argyris ---
(In reply to LIU Hao from comment #3)
> Costas, would you like to provide a configure option to exclude that
> manifest?
I created a patch for that and attached it here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112640
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Running a bootstrap right now and will report back in a few.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112640
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
# head -10 /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
BogoMIPS: 50.08
Features: fp asimd evtstrm aes pmull sha1 sha2 crc32 atomics fphp
asimdhp cpuid asimdrdm lrcpc dcpop asimddp ssbs
CPU implementer : 0x
1 - 100 of 155 matches
Mail list logo
