https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103227
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Still, the interaction between IPA-CP and IPA-SRA is bad here. Just
looking at the optimized dump, one of the "specialized functions"
starts with:
[local count: 62767467]:
# DEBUG D#203 s=> row
# DE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103227
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to hubicka from comment #5)
> > I like the idea of transformation phases better than putting
> > everything into tree-inline (and by extension ipa-param-manipulation)
> > but perhaps we have to do
at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 51863
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51863&action=edit
Untested fix
I am testing the attached patch.
I would like to file a new bug for the testcase in com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103227
--- Comment #12 from Martin Jambor ---
Some testing is still underway, but I have proposed the patch (with one minor
testsuite change) on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-November/585337.html
at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Oops, I knew I forgot some peculiarity about the transformation phase TODOs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103441
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 51884
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51884&action=edit
Untested fix
I am testing this fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103441
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103449
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
The second "Invalid read of size 8" can be avoided with the following
(untested but correct):
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-param-manipulation.c b/gcc/ipa-param-manipulation.c
index 479c20b3871..ff65dad0971 100644
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103449
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Making the hash_map big enough not to reallocate makes the valgrind complaint
go away (of course, this is an experiment, not a suggested fix):
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-param-manipulation.c b/gcc/ipa-param-manip
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103449
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> What likely happens is that 'tree *d' is a pointer to the hash_map. Then you
> want to put another item in the same hash_map (m_dead_ssa_debug_equiv.put),
> it's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103449
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
In my defense, even in my old code, in the call
m_dead_ssa_debug_equiv.put (dead_ssa, *d)
I would expect the load *d to be evaluated before the inline template
function put is invoked and it feels strang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103267
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a patch to address this issue in:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-November/585756.html
Well, it prevents the infinite loop testcase from segfaulting when the
function infini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103449
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103267
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98782
--- Comment #29 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #23)
> I wonder if we can get rid of the final magic parameter too, we run with
> --param ipa-cp-unit-growth=80 too which seems to have no more effect on
> exchange,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80689
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> Even LLVM does this same thing.
What do you mean by "does this same thing?" Does it copy the structure
element-wise or does it copy it is a block like GCC does
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks: 26163
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linix
Target: x86_64-linux
LNT has detected
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks: 26163
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux
Target: x86_64-linux
When compiling the following
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux
Target: x86_64-linux
When
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102178
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Martin, maybe you can try moving late sink to before the last phiopt pass.
If you mean the following then unfortunately that has not helped.
diff --git a/gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102178
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #3)
> ...I'll have a very brief look at what is actually happening just so that I
> have more reasons to believe this is not a code placement issue again.
The hot fun
at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
Mine, looks like a lot of fun.
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: crazylht at gmail dot com
Blocks: 26163
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102388
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
I proposed a fix on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/580183.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102473
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #6)
> Does it means cycles?
Basically yes, AFAIK. Basically I ran both versions under perf record
and then processed the output (so that is not so wide) of perf repo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102388
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102310
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101296
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
Looking at the LNT graph, I guess this bug should be either closed or suspended
(not sure what the suspended state means for the blocked metabug, so probably
closed).
Yeah, it's weird.
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks: 26163
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102505
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
I proposed a patch on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-October/582249.html
||2021-10-22
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
Oh, stupid me... mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102886
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
I posted a fix on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-October/582380.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102886
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99670
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
I don't think this is a problem with interaction in between the two
passes, IPA-SRA obscures the picture a bit but is not really involved.
The lost opportunity here is that IPA-CP cannot propagate the consta
: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks: 26163
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux
Target: x86_64-linux
LNT reports a 8.5
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64
|1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-13
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
Interesting, I'll have a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 107206, which changed state.
Bug 107206 Summary: Bogus -Wuninitialized in std::optional
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107206
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107206
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107661
--- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #13)
> It seems to have something to do with
> push_agg_values_from_edge()/push_agg_values_for_index_from_edge() behaviour
> of filtering self-recursive lattice
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107661
--- Comment #15 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a patch on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/607017.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107661
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107828
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
I don't see any correctness issue here. It is true that when IPA-SRA
needs to create a temporary SSA_NAME for an assignment with
VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR (that is the only statement that extra_stmts can
contain at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106816
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
>
> @Martin: Do we have a declaration cloning code for functions somewhere?
See e.g. cgraph_node::create_virtual_clone in cgraphclones.cc. Unless
you want to mes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108110
--- Comment #15 from Martin Jambor ---
Sorry for the breakage. The problem is that in
ipa_param_body_adjustments::m_replacements, items pertaining to the
same base original parameter are no longer necessarily adjacent, which
is assumed in ipa_p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108130
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108110
--- Comment #16 from Martin Jambor ---
I have posted the sorting patch to the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-January/609459.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100413
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105275
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
Confirmed with GCC 12.1 numbers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105493
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
I can confirm that an Intel Cascade Lake Xeon, using -Ofast -flto
-march=native, 538.imagick_r produced by GCC 12.1 is almost 20% slower
than the benchmark built with GCC 11.2 and the same options (on Zen2
o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105690
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> somehow function splitting exposes this,
With options:
-O2 -Warray-bounds -S -fno-inline-functions-called-once --param
inline-unit-growth=0 --param max-inline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105639
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105639
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105860
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105860
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
I proposed a fix on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-July/597674.html
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106216
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105860
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106260
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
IPA-CP is confused by seeing a local function which does not have any caller,
it expects that all such functions would be removed as unreachable.
The assert has been somewhat useful so I'd rather keep it bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106260
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
I proposed a patch on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-July/598371.html
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks: 26163
Target Milestone: ---
The benchmark 456.hmmer from
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101398
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101066
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: hjl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux
Target: x86_64-linux
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101560
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #2)
> Please try
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/575829.html
I can confirm the patch avoids the ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101626
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101654
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-07-28
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101654
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: hjl at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks: 26163
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80735
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks: 26163
Target Milestone: ---
All three LNT x86_64 testers have experienced
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113757
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a fix on the mailing list:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/ri6bk8r5kfi@virgil.suse.cz/T/#u
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: fxue at os dot amperecomputing.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110422
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113833
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 57397
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57397&action=edit
-fopt-info-vec before/after comparison
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> A compare before/after t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113847
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> CCing also Martin who should know how/why IPA SRA doesn't reconstruct the
> component ref chain here
I have not had a look at this specific case (yet), but IP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113712
--- Comment #18 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Filip Kastl from comment #17)
> I've bisected this (using the test from Andrew Pinski) to
> r10-3311-gff6686d2e5f797
That's a coincidence, with -fno-ipa-sra the testcase fails even earlier,
IP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113712
--- Comment #20 from Martin Jambor ---
I have access to the benchmark and building it with -fprofile-generate
it fails for me (with an ICE in add_symbol_to_partition_1) only when I
use -fno-use-linker-plugin and either -std=c++11 or -std=c++03.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113476
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a patch on the mailing list that converts the array of lattices
to a vector:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/ri6frxoxzpk@virgil.suse.cz/T/#u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113359
--- Comment #15 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 57462
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57462&action=edit
Simple testcase (needs disabling early - and only early - SRA)
This is a simpler testcase which exhibits the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108802
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112312
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
It seems this has been fixed in current master (which is to become gcc 14).
If my bisecting is correct, it has been fixed by r14-5628-g53ba8d669550d3 (Jan
Hubicka: inter-procedural value range propagation).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111573
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
I cannot see any difference at -O3 with or without -fno-early-inlining.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113476
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108802
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a patch on the mailing list:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/ri6y1bdx3yg@virgil.suse.cz/T/#u
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks: 26163
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
Assignee: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 57634
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57634&action=edit
t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108802
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed an improved patch on the mailing list:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/ri6r0gkzvi4@virgil.suse.cz/T/#u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114254
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a patch on the mailing list:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/ri6r0gkzvi4@virgil.suse.cz/T/#u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113757
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111571
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a fix on the mailing list:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/ri6r0gbwf7l@virgil.suse.cz/T/#u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112980
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
I'd like to ping this, are there plans to implement this in the near-ish term?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113907
--- Comment #65 from Martin Jambor ---
I hope to have some jump-function comparison functions ready for testing later
today.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108802
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12/13 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114254
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 regression]|[11/12/13 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113907
--- Comment #66 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 57750
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57750&action=edit
Patch comparing jump functions
I'm testing this patch. (Not sure how to best check that it does not
inadvert
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114452
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113359
--- Comment #22 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 57828
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57828&action=edit
Potential fix
I'm testing this patch
1901 - 2000 of 2367 matches
Mail list logo
