https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78170
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78170
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The problem is in encode_tree_to_bitpos.
It needs to take into account the padding that native_encode_expr may introduce
for sign-extended values for little-endian as well as big-endian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78038
--- Comment #11 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Nov 1 10:29:40 2016
New Revision: 241735
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241735&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ree] PR rtl-optimization/78038: Handle global
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78181
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78162
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Wed Nov 2 09:25:22 2016
New Revision: 241778
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241778&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/78162: Reject negative of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78162
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78170
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Wed Nov 2 09:28:35 2016
New Revision: 241779
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241779&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/78170: Truncate sign-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78170
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78182
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Heh, please try r241649 or later.
I now get:
movabsq $3472328296227680304, %rax
movl$825241648, text+8(%rip)
movq%rax, text(%rip)
ret
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69616
Bug 69616 depends on bug 22141, which changed state.
Bug 22141 Summary: [5/6/7 Regression] Missing optimization when storing
structures
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22141
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16996
Bug 16996 depends on bug 22141, which changed state.
Bug 22141 Summary: [5/6/7 Regression] Missing optimization when storing
structures
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22141
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22141
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22141
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.5 |7.0
--- Comment #39 from
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Running aarch64-none-linux-gnu-gcc -fself-test -S dummy.c gives an error:
$SRC/gcc/rtl-tests.c:96: test_dumping_regs: FAIL: ASSERT_STREQ (expected_dump,
dump) expected="(reg:DI vi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78213
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78213
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I see.
init_emit explicitly sets:
REG_POINTER (virtual_incoming_args_rtx) = 1;
So I'd think that the /f appears on all targets then?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78213
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77822
--- Comment #18 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Mon Nov 7 11:43:57 2016
New Revision: 241898
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241898&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] Fix PR target/77822: Use tighter pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77822
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7 Regression] arm64 |[6 Regression] arm64 Error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77822
--- Comment #20 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
One of the RTL sequences before combine showing the problem is:
(insn 94 93 95 18 (set (reg:DI 143)
(const_int 160 [0xa0])) "bad.cpp":19 50 {*movdi_aarch64}
(nil))
(ins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78234
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77822
--- Comment #24 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #23)
> Regarding the ARM patch:
>
> + {
> +if (!IN_RANGE (INTVAL (operands[2]) + INTVAL (operands[3]),
> +1, G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78234
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Nov 8 12:31:31 2016
New Revision: 241962
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241962&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[1/2] Fix off-by-one error in clear_bit_region
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78234
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Marcus, could you please try r241962 ?
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I'm seeing a segfault in ipa-prop.c when building SPEC2006, omnetpp in
particular.
The reduced testca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78272
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.2.1
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78272
--- Comment #1 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Started with r241990
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78362
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78364
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78364
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78362
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78364
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Wed Nov 16 09:02:18 2016
New Revision: 242471
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242471&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR target/78364: Add proper restrictions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78364
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78374
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78382
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78393
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71063
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave-gccbugs at earth dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78400
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78436
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Assignment of negative values to signed bitfields has caused me some headaches
in encode_tree_to_bitpos due to native_encode_expr sign-extending the value to
GET_MODE_SIZE (TYPE_MODE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78439
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78439
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Reduced testcase:
enum demangle_component_type
{
DEMANGLE_COMPONENT_THROW_SPEC
};
struct demangle_component
{
enum demangle_component_type type;
struct
{
struct
{
struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78439
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The ICE happens due to r242590.
Need to figure out if it is the cause of the bug or just exposes it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78439
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78439
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Testing a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78453
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78439
--- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 78453 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78439
--- Comment #9 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #8)
> Does something like that work?
>
> --- gcc/config/arm/vfp.md.orig2016-11-10 11:38:03.0 +0100
> +++ gcc/config/arm/vfp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78439
--- Comment #10 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Nov 22 12:12:05 2016
New Revision: 242695
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242695&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR target/78439: Update movdi constra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78439
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60675
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60675
--- Comment #10 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Note I couldn't reproduce this with a cross from x86_64-linux to
> aarch64-linux, wonder what is the important difference. While I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60697
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The compiler has been configured with:
--with-pkgversion=unknown --disable-shared --disable-nls --disable-threads
--disable-tls --enable-checking=yes --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran
--with
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
Created attachment 32474
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32474&action=edit
Reduced testcase
AArch64 compiler ICEs when building
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60697
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60726
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60726
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Passes for me on a native aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu test run with r208953,
which contains the tuning patches.
Are you sure this is not an environment issue with a model or something?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60726
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60743
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #3)
> Kyrill,
>
> sorry, to bother you with this,
> but do you see any possibility to
> return to the previous memory footprint?
I'll have a look.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60743
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60743
--- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri Apr 4 15:47:45 2014
New Revision: 209119
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209119&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM/AArch64] Reduce divider reservation duration i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60743
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60663
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Apr 15 14:04:06 2014
New Revision: 209419
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209419&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/60663
* config/a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60983
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60983
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60983
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Mon Apr 28 12:42:54 2014
New Revision: 209858
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209858&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM/AArch64] Use signed chars in gcc.dg/pr60114.c.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61010
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61010
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmmm...
int main (void)
{
int a = 0;
unsigned b = (a * 64 & 192) | 63;
return 0;
}
works (i.e. 63 without the U).
I suspect there's something dodgy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61033
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> So maybe we should add some optimization level to the existing tests in the
> meantime?
Transforming them into something like
#include "arm_neon.h"
volatile int16x8_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61155
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61154
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61177
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61177
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61241
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61455
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bviyer at gmail dot com
Component: regression
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
On arm and aarch64 I see ICEs in the aforementioned test:
$TOP/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tls/alias-1.c:24:3: internal compiler error:
Segmentation fault
0x9f71d5 crash_signal
$TOP
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
Created attachment 32972
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32972&action=edit
fre pass diff between bad and good dumps
On arm-none-eabi I see a regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61560
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61561
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61561
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.7.4
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61561
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
FWIW On 4.7.4 without LRA the ICE is:
ice.c:9:1: error: insn does not satisfy its constraints:
(insn 25 12 19 2 (set (reg:QI 2 r2)
(reg:QI 13 sp)) ice.c:8 193 {*arm_movqi_insn}
(nil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65235
--- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Mar 12 13:40:50 2015
New Revision: 221387
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221387&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[simplify-rtx] PR 65235: Calculate element size c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65235
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
Known to fail|5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65408
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64600
--- Comment #14 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Should be fixed on trunk.
Joel, can you please confirm for you and close if appropriate?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64600
--- Comment #13 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri Mar 13 10:48:44 2015
New Revision: 221413
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221413&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR target/64600 Fix another ICE with -mtun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #11 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thinking about it again, there's no reason not to do sibcalls, it's just the
code gets confused on how to shuffle the arguments around. Will investigate
deeper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #14 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Right, I think the root cause is the emit_push_insn in expr.c.
It's supposed to push what needs to be pushed from a partial argument onto the
stack and do the moves into the regi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #15 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmmm, actually it's not that simple, as testing showed.
The comment at the final load-to-regs code says:
/* If part should go in registers, copy that part
into the appropriate regi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65427
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65427
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65235
--- Comment #10 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Mar 19 09:58:42 2015
New Revision: 221511
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221511&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[simplify-rtx] PR 65235: Calculate elem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #18 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Honggyu Kim from comment #17)
> (In reply to ktkachov from comment #16)
> > I'm working on a patch btw.
>
> This bug is only shown in arm code so maybe the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65459
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |middle-end
--- Comment #19
: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target: arm*
As reported at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-03/msg00949.html
The
1001 - 1100 of 2246 matches
Mail list logo
