https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113134
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113265
Bug ID: 113265
Summary: [Regression] Missed optimization for redundancy
computation elimination may be due to constant
propagation about 0 too late
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113266
Bug ID: 113266
Summary: GCC rejects static global variable as non type
template parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
is (A = Acc);
end P;
eric@fomalhaut:~/build/gcc/native> ~/install/gcc/bin/gcc -c p.ads
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 14.0.0 20240108 (experimental) [master r14-6995-g4d31d660620]
(x86_64-suse-linux) GCC error:|
| in build_binary_op, at ada/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113195
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112457
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
You want to find the duplicate bugreport for the min/max + index reductions,
IIRC the issue is that we fail the reduction detection because of multi-use
and we should really have two conditional reductions,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109052
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113203
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110176
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113258
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Nicholas Miell from comment #14)
> Again, this version of tcmalloc predates aligned_alloc and the align_val_t
> versions of operator new and delete.
>
> Again, the C++ standard does not requ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113210
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Created attachment 56993 [details]
> gcc14-pr113210.patch
>
> So, I'd go with this patch (so far untested).
I think we want to keep the invariant that both ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99476
Ilya Leoshkevich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iii at linux dot ibm.com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108477
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
This conversion happens due to th following code in match.pd:
/* If we are XORing or adding two BIT_AND_EXPR's, both of which are and'ing
with a constant, and the two constants have no bits in common,
w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113210
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> I think we want to keep the invariant that both are INTEGER_CST when one is.
>
> If we can fold the add to 1 why can't we fold the original to 0?
Because fol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113210
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> That is, another fix might be to adjust NITERSM1 to NITERS - 1 when
> NITERS went constant ... (btw, I want to get rid of _NITERS and only
Or we could only u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112997
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113258
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #17)
> (In reply to Nicholas Miell from comment #14)
> > Again, you could probably fix this issue by implementing all of the newly
> > introduced versions of oper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113210
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> > That is, another fix might be to adjust NITERSM1 to NITERS - 1 when
> > NITERS went constant ... (btw, I wan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113210
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> > > That is, another fix might be to adjust NITERSM1 to NITER
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113210
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> > > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> > > > Tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113267
Bug ID: 113267
Summary: pragma novector ICEs when no loop condition
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113267
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113268
Bug ID: 113268
Summary: (i + (i + 1) * CST) AND (i + i * CST + 1 * CST) not
folded the same way
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113257
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
For -mcpu=native, the manual says:
Additionally on native AArch64 GNU/Linux systems the value
@samp{native} tunes performance to the host system. This option has no effect
if the compiler is unable to r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113267
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59508
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #6)
> Right. If, then std::find should not invoke std::set::find (or
> std::map::find etc) but the library's internal function to search the rb
> tree.
If that internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108477
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
If we consider the following testcase:
--cut here--
unsigned int foo (unsigned int a, unsigned int b)
{
unsigned int r = a & 0x1;
unsigned int p = b & ~0x3;
return r + p + 2;
}
unsigned int bar (unsig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113257
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #2)
I'm missing why the combination then works though?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113056
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cde6f1085b7027f6a42fdb71c786d422606a8765
commit r14-6998-gcde6f1085b7027f6a42fdb71c786d422606a8765
Author: Thomas Schwinge
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113260
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113260
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I've changed the summary, because they're not "missing", since they're not
required/supposed to exist anyway.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113056
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113269
Bug ID: 113269
Summary: X86_64 generates extra mov (and xchg) when passing
struct with constant value to function
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112952
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c131b1d5da412b9b0f0681fc5704cdc9b7cafb04
commit r14-6999-gc131b1d5da412b9b0f0681fc5704cdc9b7cafb04
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113257
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
I'm not sure. My understanding was that -march=native started by looking up
the CPU ID first and then using the internal mapping of that CPU to the
architecture (which can't work if we don't recognize th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113270
Bug ID: 113270
Summary: [14 Regression] AArch64 ICEs in register_tuple_type
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113270
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112952
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5d0d592c486c31bd9c26af0d1f0a7b6a3d68c22b
commit r13-8197-g5d0d592c486c31bd9c26af0d1f0a7b6a3d68c22b
Author: Georg-Johann
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113270
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-01-08
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113271
Bug ID: 113271
Summary: [Regression] Wrong code at -O1/2/3 since GCC-9 (could
be due to wrong optimization)
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112952
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113271
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113270
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113070
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113270
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- gcc/config.gcc.jj 2024-01-03 11:51:24.640826829 +0100
+++ gcc/config.gcc 2024-01-08 13:40:08.583405822 +0100
@@ -350,7 +350,7 @@ aarch64*-*-*)
cxx_target_objs="aarch64-c.o"
d_targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113077
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113114
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113089
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113221
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113119
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7590d975ecfdae4f112b5086c017101c08f07e3e
commit r14-7000-g7590d975ecfdae4f112b5086c017101c08f07e3e
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113120
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:efef8d7ff43c6c489fd6e7c52d71494d21324c87
commit r14-7001-gefef8d7ff43c6c489fd6e7c52d71494d21324c87
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8c0dd8a6ff85d6e7b38957f2da400f5cfa8fef6b
commit r14-7002-g8c0dd8a6ff85d6e7b38957f2da400f5cfa8fef6b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113120
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113119
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112952
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ebae82f35033be6e022dce65cea0148ddf9df025
commit r12-10085-gebae82f35033be6e022dce65cea0148ddf9df025
Author: Georg-Johan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112952
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Also fixed on the v12 branch for v12.4+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113272
Bug ID: 113272
Summary: Wrong specialization of class template selected
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113270
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Of course, another bug is that the declaration of aarch64_simd_types isn't GTY
marked:
--- gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-builtins.h.jj2024-01-03 12:01:17.852557952
+0100
+++ gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-built
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113270
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 57005
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57005&action=edit
gcc14-pr113270.patch
This seems to work by making the type static to the aarch64-builtins.cc TU
and using an e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113026
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b3cc5a1efead520bc977b4ba51f1328d01b3e516
commit r14-7003-gb3cc5a1efead520bc977b4ba51f1328d01b3e516
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113026
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 113026, which changed state.
Bug 113026 Summary: Bogus -Wstringop-overflow warning on simple memcpy type loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113026
What|Removed |Added
it/GCC/master/configure
--prefix=/home/mjires/built/master --disable-bootstrap
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,lto --disable-multilib --disable-libsanitizer
--enable-checking
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 14.0.0 20240108 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113115
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-01-08
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113273
--- Comment #1 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
Hi, sorry about the regression. Could you please check if
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/20240108092434.554918-1-...@linux.ibm.com/
fixes that for you?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113126
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=113140
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|14.0|13.3
Summary|[13 regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113151
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113273
--- Comment #2 from Michal Jireš ---
(In reply to Ilya Leoshkevich from comment #1)
> Hi, sorry about the regression. Could you please check if
> https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/20240108092434.554918-1-iii@linux.
> ibm.com/ fixes that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113273
--- Comment #3 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
Thank you for the confirmation. I will push the fix as soon as my regtests
finish.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113156
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113164
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-01-08
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113182
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113151
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I was just contemplating its implementation (and/or hoping somebody else would
handle it), never actually implemented anything.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113190
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
The issue is we allow "unknown" as Version (we have a web component and share a
bugzilla instance with classpath), so disabling versions for new bug reporting
which is a thing doesn't really help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113195
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113182
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113197
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto, needs-bisection
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113204
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
it's really odd, I don't see how it could fail. The only suspicious bit is
int file_order1 = n1->lto_file_data ? n1->lto_file_data->order : -1;
int file_order2 = n2->lto_file_data ? n2->lto_file_data-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113205
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113215
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113226
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113229
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113077
--- Comment #4 from Alex Coplan ---
So pro_and_epilogue has:
```
(insn/f 55 54 56 2 (set (mem/c:DI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 31 sp)
(const_int 16 [0x10])) [2 S8 A8])
(reg:DI 19 x19)) "t.c":2:28 -1
(expr_list:REG_CFA_OFFSE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113274
Bug ID: 113274
Summary: Memoization in template parameters is overly
aggressive; false memoization for const pointers
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113235
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113235
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 57006
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57006&action=edit
unroll heuristics
this one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113239
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13 regression] After |[13/14 regression] After
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113077
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think generally one shouldn't be reordering frame related instructions or
needs to be extremely careful when doing so.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113274
--- Comment #1 from Jan Schultke ---
Original problem and more discussion:
https://stackoverflow.com/q/4976/5740428
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113077
--- Comment #6 from Alex Coplan ---
Looks like sched_fusion is doing the re-ordering.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112937
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Schwinge ---
The GCN offloading 'libgomp.fortran/target1.f90' regression has been cured by
commit r14-6996-gc5c3aab38132ea34dc1ee69d93fded787e6ac7a4 "amdgcn: Don't
double-count AVGPRs" (..., but not the GCN target regr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113274
--- Comment #2 from Jan Schultke ---
OOPS, I've messed up the repro. It should be true in the partial
specialization.
https://godbolt.org/z/11dW3cTfc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113275
Bug ID: 113275
Summary: tests pr110268-1.c pr110268-2.c csinc-1.c csinv-1.c
fail after gcc-14-5396-ged52bc2e30c
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113274
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113272
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janschultke at googlemail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113182
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2024-01-08 9:29 a.m., jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113182
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
> What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113270
--- Comment #6 from Richard Sandiford ---
I think we want the patch in comment 3, but in addition, I then also needed to
use the following for a similar SVE case:
extern GTY(()) tree scalar_types[NUM_VECTOR_TYPES + 1];
tree scalar_types[NUM_VEC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113210
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #56993|0 |1
is obsolete|
1 - 100 of 202 matches
Mail list logo
