https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110757
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110757
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
The second slow-down of 4.5% was caused by r14-2546-g061f74c06735e1:
061f74c06735e1fa35b910ae0bcf01b61a74ec23 is the first bad commit
commit 061f74c06735e1fa35b910ae0bcf01b61a74ec23
Author: Jan Hubicka
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110757
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lili.cui at intel dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110677
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110433
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
Indeed, the error is no longer reported. Thanks.
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: ubizjak at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux-gnu
Target: alpha
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: sayle at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux
: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
When noinline attribute on a destructor, it is honored
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110378
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 55663
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55663&action=edit
Simplest testcase
The PR 109849 testcase behavior changes over time, so I prepared three
specialized for this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106293
--- Comment #22 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #21)
> Fixing loop distribution and vectorizer profile update seems to do the trick
> with profile feedback. Without we are still worse than in July last year on
> zen2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110378
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110378
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 55664
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55664&action=edit
Testcase with single inheritance
This testcase is somewhat more difficult and addressing will mean not
just ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110378
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 55665
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55665&action=edit
Testcase with non-zero offset with pass-through split
This testcase is similar to the previous one but on top
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110378
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a patch addressing the simplest case of the three on the
mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-July/625895.html
: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: aarch64-linux
Target: aarch64-linux
With master revision r14-3032-g831017d5e72173 targeting aarch64 (both native
and cross-compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110677
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a fix on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-August/627379.html
...and also posted it to the Fortran mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2023
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110677
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 110677, which changed state.
Bug 110677 Summary: UBSAN error: load of value 1818451807, which is not a valid
value for type 'expr_t' when compiling pr49213.f90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110677
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68930
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92497
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103227
Bug 103227 depends on bug 92497, which changed state.
Bug 92497 Summary: Aggregate IPA-CP and inlining do not play well together,
transformation is lost
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92497
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78790
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111088
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97807
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
I believe our tester has hit this again recently:
arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc
/home/worker/buildworker/tiber-option-juggler/build/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/packed-aligned-1.c
-mcpu=cortex-r4f -fno-tree-c
,
||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
There was also a 7.7% regression on zen3 with generic march (these measurements
are without LTO):
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=466.120.0
: UNCONFIRMED
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
Blocks: 26163
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
interestingly, the issue goes away with -flto-partition=one
It is triggered by propagating 0 as the last parameter of point.constprop.isra
which however looks correct, all four calls to the function (in dif
dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed||2023-08-25
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
With the propagation, PRE performs the following:
void point.constprop.isra (double ISRA.1740
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Simple C testcase:
-- pr57_0.c --
/* { dg-lto-do run } */
/* { dg-lto-options { { -O2 -flto=auto } } } */
/* { dg-extra-ld-options { -flto-partition=1to1 } } */
extern __attribute__((no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> I think if IPA modref declares the argument dead at the call site then IPA
> CP/SRA cannot declare it known constant.
It is declared "killed" by the function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #4)
> So here ipa-modref declares the field dead, while ipa-prop determines its
> value even if it is unused and makes it used later?
This is what I wanted to ask about
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, fkastl at suse dot cz
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux
Target: ppc64le-linux-gnu
With a cross compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111490
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108007
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||19373742 at buaa dot edu.cn
--- Comment
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org, fkastl at suse dot cz
Blocks: 86656
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110148
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
I believe this has been fixed?
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
Clearly mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 110148, which changed state.
Bug 110148 Summary: [14 Regression] TSVC s242 regression between
g:c0df96b3cda5738afbba3a65bb054183c5cd5530 and
g:e4c986fde56a6248f8fbe6cf0704e1da34b055d8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110148
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin
We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111610
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #1)
> As a matter of record, we do not really support cross-compilers targeting an
> unknown Darwin version (the idea of xxx-apple-darwin [without a specific
> version]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108007
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111688
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
I was not able to reproduce this error on gcc112 on compile farm
(powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111688
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
I made a mistake checking out the correct commit, so please disregard comment
#1, I'm trying again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111688
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111688
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
Yeah, that seems to be it. If I cannot fix this tomorrow I'll revert the patch
from master.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111688
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14 regression] bootstrap |[14 regression] bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111688
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108007
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a fix on the mailing list consisting of:
- https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-October/632042.html and
- https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-October/632044.html
and
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux-gnu
Target: i586-linux
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116230
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 58830
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58830&action=edit
minimized test-case
I have tried to minimize the testcase with cvise and came up with the
attached file. Howe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116230
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
Right, when I saw the equality test of doubles I thought it must be the test. I
forgot about the discrepancy of representation in memory and in the FPU.
Thanks a lot for taking a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115876
--- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor ---
This issue is still present and unfortunately it is the kind of bug that either
creates manual periodic work because people need to go over logs to verify that
no new other UBSAN failure has appeared or it
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks: 63426
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115876
--- Comment #20 from Martin Jambor ---
Indeed, the UBSAN failures I see now look like they are all PR 116370. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87332
Bug 87332 depends on bug 115277, which changed state.
Bug 115277 Summary: [13 regression] ICF needs to match loop bound estimates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115277
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115277
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58416
--- Comment #25 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a patch on the mailing list:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/ri6ed6kntue@virgil.suse.cz/T/#u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115815
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
Fixed on master, I plan to backport the fix (the first patch) to the affected
release branches next week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116370
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 116370, which changed state.
Bug 116370 Summary: UBSAN issue in fortran/trans-expr.cc in
arrayfunc_assign_needs_temporary - enum value out of range
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116370
What|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114627
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
So, should this be marked as fixed?
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks: 63426
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux-gnu
Target: x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96059
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
Which means that the following (untested) patch might be the correct fix:
diff --git a/gcc/ipa.cc b/gcc/ipa.cc
index 5c15b60a603..c2d94163dc2 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa.cc
+++ b/gcc/ipa.cc
@@ -199,6 +199,11 @@ wal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 107925, which changed state.
Bug 107925 Summary: ICE in update_specialized_profile at gcc/ipa-cp.cc:5082 for
531.deepsjeng_r benchmark
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107925
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107925
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107670
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=108959
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a fix on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-March/614475.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107769
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109318
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=109303
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> --- gcc/ipa-cp.cc.jj 2023-03-14 19:12:19.949553036 +0100
> +++ gcc/ipa-cp.cc 2023-03-29 18:32:34.14423 +0200
> @@ -3117,7 +3117,9 @@ propagate_aggs_acro
at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
Thanks a lot for the testcase. The divisions must always be exact.
After having one more look, I moved the check a bit earlier still and am
currently testing this:
--- a/gcc/ipa-prop.cc
+++ b/gcc/ipa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109303
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed the fix on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-March/614943.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107769
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
Yes, you identified the correct commit. The same jump function is double
counted (once during iPA-CP and then again during inlining) when we drop
references and so an address reference is replaced with a re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109318
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
Most likely a duplicate of PR 107769.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109303
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108959
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107769
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 54817
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54817&action=edit
potential patch
I am testing the attached patch. I'd like to think about the whole situation a
bit more next
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109318
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
The problem is actually slightly different, I have just attached a possible fix
to both to PR 107769.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109318
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] |[12 Regression] csmith:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107769
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] -flto |[12 Regression] -flto with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106293
--- Comment #12 from Martin Jambor ---
My understanding of comment #2 and #3 is that we end up with what are very
likely bogus BB counts that we should check and perhaps attempt to fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109607
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #0)
> On cfghooks.cc we replace
>
> BIT_FIELD_REF <*this_8(D), 8, 56>
>
An alternative (perhaps for the release branches) would be to avoid SRA if the
parameter ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109318
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107769
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108040
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
It is probably me not being able to build the necessary cross compiler
properly, but I cannot build the provided testcase, I always get errors like
the following and then some more:
: note: initializing a
NCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Bootstrap with undefined behavior san
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109759
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
Likely a duplicate of PR 109788.
I'll close the bug as such if it does not manifest itself over the weekend
ubsan bootstrap.
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks: 26163
Target Milestone: ---
Host
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks: 26163
Target Milestone: ---
The SPEC 2006 benchmark
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109797
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux
Target: s390x-linux-gnu-gcc
With cross compiler configured as
/home/worker/buildworker
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106887
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
I believe this has been fixed?
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux
Target: arm-linux-gnueabi
With a cross compiler (revision 475904f710c) configured with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109797
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #7)
>
> Martin, does this patch fix the runtime regression?
No, unfortunately it does not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109797
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
The patch from comment #9 does fix the regression. Thanks.
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: uros at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64
at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a patch on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-May/618346.html
2001 - 2100 of 2366 matches
Mail list logo
