https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94746
Alejandro Colomar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115097
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |ipa
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115097
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96252
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115097
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109335
--- Comment #2 from Alejandro Colomar ---
This is probably because there's no way to mark a function as being a valid
deallocator (i.e., the converse of [[gnu::malloc()]]).
As a workaround, such deallocators could be defined (C99) inline, so th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96252
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
I wonder if we could mark call statement that icf produces as noinline unless
it is inlined?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115097
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Testcase for the inliner issue:
struct A { int a; short b; };
A test(A& a) { return a; }
A test1(A& a) { return test(a); }
where the issue is that test() doesn't use DECL_RESULT for its return and thus
de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115097
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
[...]
> /* If aggregate_value_p is true, then we can return the bare RESULT_DECL.
> Recall that aggregate_value_p is FALSE for any aggregate type that is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115086
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
So looking into this a little bit. There are many different patterns which
might need to be fixed. Maybe there is a better way of implementing this into
forwprop. Let see if that is doable. But that won't be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96252
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109335
--- Comment #3 from Alejandro Colomar ---
Oops, no, that's a different story. The analyzer is thinking it leaks
somewhere where it doesn't seem to leak.
The false positive still reproduces with
gcc-14 (Debian 14-20240429-1) 14.0.1 20240429 (e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114301
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:642f31d6286b8a342130fbface51530befd975fd
commit r15-501-g642f31d6286b8a342130fbface51530befd975fd
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114301
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115101
Bug ID: 115101
Summary: [wrong code] with -O1 -floop-nest-optimize for
gcc.dg/graphite/interchange-8.c
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115069
Haochen Jiang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||haochen.jiang at intel dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115082
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115082
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
The question becomes how expensive is to add an optab for &~. I don't think it
is not that expensive so I will go down that route (and make sure I document
it).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90323
--- Comment #21 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #20)
> The aarch64 backend matches this:
> (insn 15 10 16 2 (set (reg/i:V4SI 32 v0)
> (xor:V4SI (and:V4SI (xor:V4SI (reg:V4SI 101)
> (reg:V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115097
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
> and then we inline them back, introducing the extra copy. Why do we use
> tail-calls here instead of aliases? Why do we lack cost modeling here?
Because the function is exported and we must keep addresses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104426
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89624
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:99dd1be14172445795f0012b935359e7014a2215
commit r15-502-g99dd1be14172445795f0012b935359e7014a2215
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114589
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||85316
--- Comment #5 from Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115092
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114958
--- Comment #6 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
The last commit introduced a regression on i686 where __builtin_shufflevector
was producing MMX vectors (which can mess up the FPU). Untested patch which
resolves the issue:
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115101
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114995
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c400b2100719d0a9e5989c63e0827b9e98919df3
commit r15-504-gc400b2100719d0a9e5989c63e0827b9e98919df3
Author: Aldy Hernandez
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114995
--- Comment #13 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #10)
> Created attachment 58202 [details]
> proof of concept implementing a range-op entry for builtin_assume_aligned
>
> Something like this (properly coded and e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115086
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> So looking into this a little bit. There are many different patterns which
> might need to be fixed. Maybe there is a better way of implementing this
> into forw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96059
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|59859 |
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111527
--- Comment #9 from Deepthi H ---
Created attachment 58212
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58212&action=edit
With_Files_Workaround_for_GCC_ArgumentLongList
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111527
--- Comment #10 from Deepthi H ---
As suggested, We've updated the patch to place the arguments in a file instead
of passing it from an env variable.
When the COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS is <128kb the env variable is used and when the
size >128kb argume
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113719
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Hongyu Wang ---
[...]
> Could you try the attachment and see if the error was solved? I tested with
I just bootstrapped with the patch included on i386-pc-solaris
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90323
--- Comment #22 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #21)
> I am not sure if powerpc vsx
> has &~ though.
VMX has vandc (since 1999), and VSX has xxlandc (since 2010).
In general, PowerPC has a full complement of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113578
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-05-15
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115092
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think the bug is in simplify_comparison.
We have there
GE (sign_extract:SI (reg/v:SI 101 [ g ]) (const_int 1 [0x1]) (const_int 0 [0]))
(const_int -1 [0x])
That is first changed into
GE (ash
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77704
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:23ef0f68ad5fca1fd7027c5f6cb9f6d27b28
commit r15-510-g23ef0f68ad5fca1fd7027c5f6cb9f6d27b28
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115092
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Indeed, combine_simplify_rtx on
> (set (reg:CCGC 17 flags)
> (compare:CCGC (sign_extract:SI (reg/v:SI 101 [ g ])
> (const_int 1 [0x1])
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85656
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Rainer Orth :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ff105c39bde43bdb57615e3a4c7af71fbef5f26e
commit r15-511-gff105c39bde43bdb57615e3a4c7af71fbef5f26e
Author: Rainer Orth
Date: Wed Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115057
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85656
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE |ro at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85656
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87332
Bug 87332 depends on bug 85656, which changed state.
Bug 85656 Summary: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-icf-38.c FAILs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85656
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115092
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> I think the bug is in simplify_comparison.
> We have there
> GE (sign_extract:SI (reg/v:SI 101 [ g ]) (const_int 1 [0x1]) (const_int 0
> [0])) (const_int -1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114589
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
So actually it also needs -fno-ivopts since otherwise VRP is confused. With
-fno-ivopts it's late DOM that figures out the loop doesn't iterate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115092
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> > I think the bug is in simplify_comparison.
> > We have there
> > GE (sign_extract:SI (reg/v:SI 101 [ g ]) (c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115092
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> > Yeah, that look like it is missing some test.
>
> I'd go with
> --- gcc/combine.cc.jj 2024-05-07 18:10:10.415874636 +0200
> +++ gcc/combine.cc2024-05
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64835
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96059
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Actually, let me drop the PR59859 blocker, as IIRC we've had reports of this
> downstream w/o graphite.
I think you edited wrong PR here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115092
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 58213
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58213&action=edit
gcc15-pr115092.patch
Full patch I'm going to test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115102
Bug ID: 115102
Summary: [SH] GCC misunderstands swap.b instruction
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115079
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86933
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||420 at zerberste dot es
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115028
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115089
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|-Wanalyzer-use-of-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115103
Bug ID: 115103
Summary: No diagnostics for grainsize used together with
num_tasks clause or for fortran for nogroup with
reduction
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115103
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-05-15
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113920
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Now targeting GCC 16.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115092
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Still okay :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113964
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Martin Jambor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:44191982c6bd41db1c9d126ea2f15febec3c1f81
commit r12-10442-g44191982c6bd41db1c9d126ea2f15febec3c1f81
Author: Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114247
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Martin Jambor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:44191982c6bd41db1c9d126ea2f15febec3c1f81
commit r12-10442-g44191982c6bd41db1c9d126ea2f15febec3c1f81
Author: Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108007
--- Comment #24 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Martin Jambor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2183e5b5aa3a080624cb95a06993e34dedd09cb2
commit r12-10443-g2183e5b5aa3a080624cb95a06993e34dedd09cb2
Author: Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113757
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Martin Jambor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2183e5b5aa3a080624cb95a06993e34dedd09cb2
commit r12-10443-g2183e5b5aa3a080624cb95a06993e34dedd09cb2
Author: Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114247
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112616
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Martin Jambor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2183e5b5aa3a080624cb95a06993e34dedd09cb2
commit r12-10443-g2183e5b5aa3a080624cb95a06993e34dedd09cb2
Author: Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109335
--- Comment #4 from Alejandro Colomar ---
Here's a smaller reproducer:
$ cat pass.c
#include
void my_free(char *p);
[[gnu::malloc(my_free)]] char *my_malloc(void);
int main(void)
{
char *p;
p = my_malloc();
my_free(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115104
Bug ID: 115104
Summary: RISC-V: GCC-14 can combine vsext+vadd -> vwadd but
Trunk GCC (GCC 15) Failed
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115104
--- Comment #1 from JuzheZhong ---
I wonder whether RIVOS CI already found which commit cause this regression ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115104
--- Comment #2 from Robin Dapp ---
Thanks, I was just about to open a PR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115093
JuzheZhong changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71613
Tavian Barnes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tavianator at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115105
Bug ID: 115105
Summary: Document "Reimplement GNU threads library on native
Windows" change on GCC 13 changes list
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115104
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am 80% sure this was exposed by the combine patch which will be fixed but not
in combine. I am not sure the time frame of the improvement though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115057
--- Comment #2 from Gaius Mulley ---
Created attachment 58214
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58214&action=edit
Proposed fix
Here is a proposed fix - which I'll commit (if/when) a full bootstrap
completes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115104
--- Comment #4 from Patrick O'Neill ---
Relevant CI issue:
https://github.com/patrick-rivos/gcc-postcommit-ci/issues/895
Commit Range:
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/compare/ec1cdad89afed4d5fc8617c3de3c1950ca55ba7e...bed6ec161be8c5ca2f2419590
: i386-pc-solaris2.11
Build: i386-pc-solaris2.11
Between 20240514 (0a99ad5c52caa06c113b1889bbe6634812b89be5) and 20240515
(5609d77e683944439fae38323ecabc44a1eb4671),
Ada bootstrap broke in stage 3 on Solaris/x86:
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115028
Haochen Jiang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||haochen.jiang at intel dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115091
--- Comment #2 from andi at firstfloor dot org ---
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 06:23:27AM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115091
>
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
> maybe represent th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105863
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115058
--- Comment #8 from xiaoyong yan ---
ok, thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115057
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:680af0e1e90d4b80260d173636dfe15654fd470d
commit r15-516-g680af0e1e90d4b80260d173636dfe15654fd470d
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115057
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114931
--- Comment #21 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:573e1df0ec8428e564c97af7c237a5e0c98c59bd
commit r14-10210-g573e1df0ec8428e564c97af7c237a5e0c98c59bd
Author: Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114931
--- Comment #22 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1d89cb43943e77d0bbb48fd5a58a352bdd3d82c7
commit r14-10211-g1d89cb43943e77d0bbb48fd5a58a352bdd3d82c7
Author: Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114931
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111422
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ab25eef36400e8c1d28e3ed059c5f95a38b45f17
commit r15-517-gab25eef36400e8c1d28e3ed059c5f95a38b45f17
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114589
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:99b1daae18c095d6c94d32efb77442838e11cbfb
commit r15-518-g99b1daae18c095d6c94d32efb77442838e11cbfb
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114589
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64835
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Eric, gcc.dg/ipa/iinline-attr.c XPASSes on 64-bit SPARC since
>
> commit ffabce849033e57ebaf60029822b81e981681c21
> Author: Eric Botcazou
> Date: Tue Nov 29 11:43:32 2022 +0100
>
> Couple of test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105863
--- Comment #8 from H. Peter Anvin ---
Well, _Embed() would be an extension and it doesn't seem unreasonable to say
that _Embed() would be expanded after token pasting. After all, as has been
discussed in the C committee is that if #embed cannot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103503
--- Comment #7 from H. Peter Anvin ---
Note: this is now implemented for x86, but it affects other targets as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115028
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-05-15
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63185
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.5.0, 13.2.1, 14.1.0
Resoluti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79958
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=115103
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7fdbefc575c24881356b5f4091fa57b5f7166a90
commit r15-519-g7fdbefc575c24881356b5f4091fa57b5f7166a90
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96108
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115092
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0b93a0ae153ef70a82ff63e67926a01fdab9956b
commit r15-520-g0b93a0ae153ef70a82ff63e67926a01fdab9956b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114902
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0b93a0ae153ef70a82ff63e67926a01fdab9956b
commit r15-520-g0b93a0ae153ef70a82ff63e67926a01fdab9956b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100314
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113208
--- Comment #36 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6ad7ca1bb905736c0f57688e93e9e77cbc71a325
commit r15-521-g6ad7ca1bb905736c0f57688e93e9e77cbc71a325
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
