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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114238
Bug ID: 114238
Summary: Multiple 554.roms_r run-time regressions (4%-20%)
since r14-9193-ga0b1798042d033
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114254
Bug ID: 114254
Summary: Indirect inlining through C++ member pointers fails if
the underlying class has a virtual function
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
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
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.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110778
Bug ID: 110778
Summary: Alpha targets broken since r14-2587-gd8105b10fff951
(undefined reference to extended_count)
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110843
Bug ID: 110843
Summary: ICE in convert_insn, at
config/i386/i386-features.cc:1438 since
r14-2405-g4814b63c3c2326
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110846
Bug ID: 110846
Summary: Noinline attribute on a destructor only honored when
on the member function declaration, does not wok on
definition
Product: gcc
Version:
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110969
Bug ID: 110969
Summary: ICE in to_constant, at poly-int.h:504 on aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
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
Resol
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110973
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fkastl at suse dot cz,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57
Bug ID: 57
Summary: 416.gamess fails with a run-time abort when compiled
with -O2 -flto after r14-3226-gd073e2d75d9ed4
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111225
Bug ID: 111225
Summary: ICE in curr_insn_transform, unable to generate reloads
for xor, since r14-2447-g13c556d6ae84be
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111371
Bug ID: 111371
Summary: ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.cc:4290
on pp64le with -mcpu=power5+ -mpower10-fusion -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCON
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111505
Bug ID: 111505
Summary: Asan (address-sanitizer) bootstrap fails since
r14-4003-geaa8e8541349df
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110148
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
I believe this has been fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111571
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-09-24
Assignee|unassigne
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111610
Bug ID: 111610
Summary: Cannot build cross compiler to darwin targets after
r14-4108-g47346acb72b50d
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116230
Bug ID: 116230
Summary: Testsuite of liborcus fails with GCC 14 on i586 since
r14-1891-g154c69039571c6
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116370
Bug ID: 116370
Summary: UBSAN issue in fortran/trans-expr.cc in
arrayfunc_assign_needs_temporary - enum value out of
range
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
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?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116661
Bug ID: 116661
Summary: Undefined behavior when compiling interop-1.f90 gomp
test
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109303
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
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.
301 - 400 of 706 matches
Mail list logo
