https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116034
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110498
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48620
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.5.0, 11.5.0, 6.5.0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104011
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-07-22
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53705
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.5.0, 11.5.0, 6.5.0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116034
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think the issue is in maybe_rewrite_mem_ref_base :
else if (TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (sym)) == COMPLEX_TYPE
&& useless_type_conversion_p (TREE_TYPE (*tp),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116034
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116034
--- Comment #6 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #1)
> on godbolt, 6.5 looks OK, and 7.1 starts to fail for amd64.
My apologies; the results for gcc-6.5.0 and gcc-7.5.0 were not correct due to
linking errors. Indeed 6.5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116036
Bug ID: 116036
Summary: [14/15] RISCV: internal compiler error: in
riscv_expand_mult_with_const_int with -march=rv64idv
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
-gnu-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --enable-libsanitizer
--disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r15-2206-20240722194717-g6f81b7fa799-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 15.0.0 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115389
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Peter Bergner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:33ebeb2435d68ae0546b29394e99e00647943fa9
commit r14-10491-g33ebeb2435d68ae0546b29394e99e00647943fa9
Author: Peter Bergner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114759
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Peter Bergner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e2d746e5ab73b0b1f1a8104101c09b1f4ab3fa25
commit r14-10492-ge2d746e5ab73b0b1f1a8104101c09b1f4ab3fa25
Author: Peter Bergner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115988
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Peter Bergner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bd535b46aaffe637b2eeb634e56ee6e9efa511bf
commit r14-10494-gbd535b46aaffe637b2eeb634e56ee6e9efa511bf
Author: Peter Bergner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114759
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Peter Bergner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:35e5c2d2e4af20d143ee1a4f8f4f2bd8b24c4af1
commit r14-10493-g35e5c2d2e4af20d143ee1a4f8f4f2bd8b24c4af1
Author: Peter Bergner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114759
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Peter Bergner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bd535b46aaffe637b2eeb634e56ee6e9efa511bf
commit r14-10494-gbd535b46aaffe637b2eeb634e56ee6e9efa511bf
Author: Peter Bergner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116037
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116034
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116034
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Created attachment 58723 [details]
> gcc15-pr116034.patch
>
> Full untested patch.
This looks good to me. This is basically the same as the patch which I was
c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100395
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116036
--- Comment #1 from Patrick O'Neill ---
Here's the assert that gets triggered:
/* We use multiplication for remaining cases. */
gcc_assert (
TARGET_MUL
&& "M-extension must be enabled to calculate the poly_int "
"size/offset.");
());
return 0;
}
$ g++ -std=c++2b
In file included from :1:
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20240722/include/c++/15.0.0/functional: In
instantiation of 'static constexpr decltype(auto) std::_Bind_front<_Fd,
_BoundArgs>::_S_call(_Tp&&, std::index_sequence<_Is ...>, _CallArgs&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116039
Bug ID: 116039
Summary: [15] rv64gc miscompile at -O3 with
-fno-strict-aliasing since r15-1901-g98914f9eba5
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116038
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14/15 Regression] |ambiguous overload in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116040
Bug ID: 116040
Summary: New test case gfortran.dg/pr113363.f90 from
r13-8926-g7c81ff02a943cd ICEs
Product: gcc
Version: 13.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116038
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>A smaller reproduction without including the stdlib is:
While the original is accepted by clang, this one is rejected by clang. I have
not looked into why though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116039
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115389
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #4)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #2)
> > So, what value do we output? And why?
> The invalid offset is zero, so: hashst r0,0(r1)
> As the assemb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111613
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9ddd5f88e60972147dff74b48658e2b12040d468
commit r14-10495-g9ddd5f88e60972147dff74b48658e2b12040d468
Author: Jan Hubicka
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116038
--- Comment #3 from waffl3x ---
I'll take a look
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109985
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:efcbe7b985e24ac002a863afd609c44a67761195
commit r15-2207-gefcbe7b985e24ac002a863afd609c44a67761195
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Mon J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116038
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109985
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14 Regression]
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114189
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> > aarch64 reports just
> >
> > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/if-compare_2.c check-function-bodies bar1
> > FAIL: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58416
--- Comment #15 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 58724
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58724&action=edit
simple (wip) fix
I'm wondering whether just simply something like this would not be enough. I
have looked at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116041
Bug ID: 116041
Summary: aarch64 fallout from removing vcond{,u,eq} patterns
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: internal-improvement, missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79423
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
We've had -fdiagnostics-format=json since GCC 9, and
-fdiagnostics-format=sarif-{file,stderr} support since GCC 13, IIRC. Arguably
an IDE should be using the latter instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116041
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |testsuite
Keywords|missed-opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116041
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-07-22
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116038
--- Comment #5 from waffl3x ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> deducing this was not part of GCC 13 so this can't be a regression.
Yeah but it can be a stdlib regression since std::bind_front existed
before, and exists in C++20,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116020
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116010
--- Comment #3 from Thiago Jung Bauermann
---
Created attachment 58725
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58725&action=edit
mve-vabs.s generated by the test after commit c290e6a0b7a9.
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116010
--- Comment #4 from Thiago Jung Bauermann
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> The gfortran.dg/vect/vect-8.f90 testcase is incredibly bad because it has so
> many loops that are or are not vectorized. It should ideally be split u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116010
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Thiago Jung Bauermann from comment #3)
> Created attachment 58725 [details]
> mve-vabs.s generated by the test after commit c290e6a0b7a9.
>
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116038
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115086
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Note andc optab was added with r15-1890-gf379596e0ba99d .
Note the c here will need to be changed as there is a mode called csi (which is
the complex si mode wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115086
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/llvm/llv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115086
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58726
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58726&action=edit
Current set of patches
This is the current set of patches but still need the optab name changes which
I will w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104981
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7c5a9bf1d206fe20cb050200d4a30f11c76b1b19
commit r15-2210-g7c5a9bf1d206fe20cb050200d4a30f11c76b1b19
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115550
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7c5a9bf1d206fe20cb050200d4a30f11c76b1b19
commit r15-2210-g7c5a9bf1d206fe20cb050200d4a30f11c76b1b19
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115783
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:50ff112d17ec53ccff2858f6ded9dc04b1d5d2bc
commit r14-10497-g50ff112d17ec53ccff2858f6ded9dc04b1d5d2bc
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115550
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:066c7893eae0bfc7d9b33b931f115f455246c914
commit r14-10498-g066c7893eae0bfc7d9b33b931f115f455246c914
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104981
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:066c7893eae0bfc7d9b33b931f115f455246c914
commit r14-10498-g066c7893eae0bfc7d9b33b931f115f455246c914
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116039
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-07-23
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116037
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58416
--- Comment #16 from Paul Eggert ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> Paul - can you test if this patch resolves the emacs issue?
Unfortunately not. Although the generated code differs, it's still the same bad
pattern. GDB's comma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116042
Bug ID: 116042
Summary: ICE Segmentation fault ( in
ix86_finalize_stack_frame_flags and
ix86_expand_prologue())
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116013
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116013
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
I have patches for part of this, though the optabs need to be renamed so the
backend changes have to wait until I finish that. and I need to also match ~(a
| CST) into `BIT_ANDC (~CST, a)` which I will add t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115086
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
Another testcase:
```
unsigned test1(unsigned value)
{
return ~(value | 0xf);
}
```
This one is reduced from PR 116013 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115086
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58728
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58728&action=edit
Patch that goes on top of the rest
This will fix the testcase in comment #10. It does fix the vector type one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116013
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> I have patches for part of this, though the optabs need to be renamed so the
> backend changes have to wait until I finish that. and I need to also match
> ~(a |
สำหรับเจ้าของกิจการ ที่มี Project อยากต่อยอดเพิ่มกำไรให้ธุรกิจ
แต่ยังหาทุนทรัพย์ไม่ทัน เจ้าของธุรกิจที่มีการจดทะเบียน ใบประกอบกิจการ
✔️อนุมัติสูงสุด 5,000,000 บาท
✔️ไม่เช็คเครดิต บูโรเอกสารไม่ยุ่งยาก ไม่ต้องมีบุคคลค้ำประกัน
✔️อัตราดอกเบี้ยเริ่มต้น1.5%
✔️ตัดต้นลดดอกเบี้ยทันที
ถ้าท่านสนใจบริการของเรา
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106069
--- Comment #53 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ad65caa332bc7600caff6b9b5b29175b40d91e67
commit r15-2211-gad65caa332bc7600caff6b9b5b29175b40d91e67
Author: Alexandre Oliva
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106069
--- Comment #54 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:109b389a0b1528ef7a7c12f0923fb3f5be238f0c
commit r14-10499-g109b389a0b1528ef7a7c12f0923fb3f5be238f0c
Author: Alexandre O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115877
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ad642d2c950657539777ea436b787e7fff4ec09e
commit r15-2212-gad642d2c950657539777ea436b787e7fff4ec09e
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Mon Jul 22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116010
--- Comment #6 from Thiago Jung Bauermann
---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to Thiago Jung Bauermann from comment #3)
> > > First gcc.target/arm/simd/mve-vabs.c now calls memcpy because of the
> > > restrict instead of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116010
--- Comment #7 from Thiago Jung Bauermann
---
Created attachment 58729
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58729&action=edit
Testsuite results with/without bisected commit.
Regarding the gfortran.dg/vect/vect-8.f90, I'm attach
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106069
--- Comment #55 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e504184f9175204bc66bf5a95a400bc4685f8ffc
commit r13-8934-ge504184f9175204bc66bf5a95a400bc4685f8ffc
Author: Alexandre Ol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106069
--- Comment #56 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e142b6607267100537fc7abe6f60a52fc0d8535c
commit r12-10635-ge142b6607267100537fc7abe6f60a52fc0d8535c
Author: Alexandre O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115086
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58726|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116013
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note I attached my patches to PR 115086 which fixes this for aarch64. All that
is needed after these patches get approved is either rename the current
patterns in the i386 backend to be andn3 and iorn3 and i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115713
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:04da747a063850333b062e48d0531debe314dff9
commit r15-2214-g04da747a063850333b062e48d0531debe314dff9
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Tue Jul 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115713
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f4062e3615a32597afdb6c8066c87f680276
commit r15-2216-gf4062e3615a32597afdb6c8066c87f680276
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Tue Jul 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115713
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e6db8848d956f5e712dd621d33630b799ff60a72
commit r15-2215-ge6db8848d956f5e712dd621d33630b799ff60a72
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Tue Jul 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115982
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao Liu ---
Fixed by r15-2217-ga3f03891065cb9, could be latent on release branch since
GCC12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59104
--- Comment #22 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #21)
> (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #20)
> > OK the regression is fixed - thanks for the green light, Harald.
> >
> > It's a pity that I have missed the 4.2 release :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58416
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Paul Eggert from comment #16)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> > Paul - can you test if this patch resolves the emacs issue?
>
> Unfortunately not. Although the generated code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58416
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #15)
> Created attachment 58724 [details]
> simple (wip) fix
>
> I'm wondering whether just simply something like this would not be enough.
> I have looked at total
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116043
Bug ID: 116043
Summary: [15 regression] TLS relocation issue when building
glibc with -O3 -march=znver4
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116043
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 58732
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58732&action=edit
reduced.i
First attempt at reduction. Not sure it's valid.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116029
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> So, the problem is that with the addition of TARGET_CPU_grace,
> TARGET_CPU_generic is now 64, which causes problems, because of
> return &all_cores[TARGET_CPU_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
--- Comment #20 from Tamar Christina ---
Hi Mikael,
I did regression testing on x86_64 and AArch64 and only found one test-ism.
I think I understand most of the patch to be able to deal with any fallout,
would it be ok if I fix the test-ism and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116032
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
Keywords|
101 - 183 of 183 matches
Mail list logo
