https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65489
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65491
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64952
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=65532
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=65491
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42575
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.2.1 |5.0
--- Comment #15 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65624
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65624
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|WAITING
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65624
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #22 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to James Greenhalgh from comment #21)
> As this has been failing since GCC 4.6.3, it is not a regression and
> therefore Kyrill's fix would not be appropriate for Stage 4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65489
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Apr 7 10:24:19 2015
New Revision: 221892
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221892&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR 65489: Accept VSTRUCT cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65489
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65694
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65694
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65694
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #4)
> This looks similar to PR 64600.
> The problem seems to be arm_canonicalize_comparison that
> canonicalizes a comparison with 2147483647 (0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65694
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #5)
> (In reply to ktkachov from comment #4)
> > This looks similar to PR 64600.
> > The problem seems to be arm_canonicalize_comparison that
&g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65771
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65771
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The loc tree that ends up hitting the gcc_unreachable is:
unit size
align 32 symtab -151568224 alias set 1 canonical type 0x77035690
precision 32 min max
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65771
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #2)
> The loc tree that ends up hitting the gcc_unreachable is:
> type public SI
> size
> unit size
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65771
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> The switch statement in loc_list_from_tree
> doesn't handle DEBUG_EXPR_DECL which is why it ICEs.
> However, I'm not familiar with the code.
> Should it handle DEBUG_EX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65771
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The code around the gcc_unreachable is:
#ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING
/* Otherwise this is a generic code; we should just lists all of
these explicitly. We forgot one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65771
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |debug
--- Comment #8 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65836
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=65836
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65836
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Bisection confirmed that it's r222173:
Author: vries
Date: Fri Apr 17 09:26:59 2015 +
Postpone expanding va_arg until pass_stdarg
2015-04-17 Tom de Vries
Mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65836
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tom at codesourcery dot com
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Consider the following function from the linux kernel (fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c):
int nfs4_proc_get_rootfh(struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65836
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65864
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65924
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=65955
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=65955
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65955
--- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #7)
> (In reply to vries from comment #6)
> > I'm now doing a nobootstrap build and test with and without the patch.
>
> I have reproduced t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65955
--- Comment #10 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> > I can't reproduce it on my cross build with
> > -mthumb/-march=armv7-a/-mfloat-abi=hard/-mfpu=vfpv3-d16 unfortunately
>
> with checking=yes,rtl?
Ah yes, with --en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
--- Comment #26 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So, out of interest, what is needed to make this work properly with target
attributes?
What hooks do we need to implement?
Looking at
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Target
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I'm working on something that touches the target option override code and I
notice the i386 and rs6000 targets check an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66075
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66049
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sch...@linux-m68k.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66049
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65955
--- Comment #12 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue May 12 09:15:09 2015
New Revision: 223049
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223049&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] Fix PR 65955: Do not take REGNO on non-REG
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65955
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65955
--- Comment #14 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Wed May 13 15:00:50 2015
New Revision: 223165
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223165&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] Fix PR 65955: Do not take REGNO on non-REG
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65955
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|5.0 |5.1.0
--- Comment #15 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65955
--- Comment #16 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu May 14 13:16:32 2015
New Revision: 223195
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223195&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] Fix PR 65955: Do not take REGNO on non-REG
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65955
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65225
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #1)
> Presumably yours ?
Yes, and I think it's fixed. At least all the important aarch64 patches are in
with.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66049
--- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vekumar from comment #7)
>
> I am going to first send out patch for adding new shift based patterns.
> Then separate patch test and remove mul patterns.
Ok, please sen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66239
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=66241
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-05-21 00:00:00 |2015-5-22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65491
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri May 22 14:36:27 2015
New Revision: 223577
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223577&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR target/65491: Classify V1TF ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65491
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #24 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Wed May 27 13:25:01 2015
New Revision: 223753
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223753&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[expr.c] PR target/65358 Avoid clobbering
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
With r223753 as a fix for PR 65358 we now detect cases where a partial argument
overlaps with itself during a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #25 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This should be fixed on trunk for GCC 6.
I'll keep this open for a few days to make sure there are no glaring complaints
about the patch as it gets through the auto-testers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64159
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: arm-none-eabi
I'm getting this ICEs i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66314
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35644
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35644&action=edit
Reduced testcase
Confirmed on aarch64-none-elf with current trunk.
Attaching reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66090
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=65225
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59744
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I couldn't reproduce the failure using 4.8.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58694
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58172
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59787
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59270
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=59270
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #3)
> AFAICS is completely unrelated.
Yes, I noticed now that it was expected fallout from
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-01/msg00746.html
So
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56315
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51980
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=59913
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59913
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59913
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #4)
> I'm still bisecting, but I suspect two recent commits to lra-constraints:
>
> r206938
>
> 2014-01-22 Vladimir Makarov
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #30 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch bootstrapped ok on arm-none-linux-gnueabihf configured
--with-arch=armv7-a --with-fpu=neon-vfpv4 --with-mode=thumb --with-float=hard
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran
Passed regtest too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59923
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch bootstrapped ok on arm-none-linux-gnueabihf configured
--with-arch=armv7-a --with-fpu=neon-vfpv4 --with-mode=thumb --with-float=hard
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran
Passed regtest too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60094
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=60162
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55426
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55426
--- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Feb 25 10:20:40 2014
New Revision: 208116
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208116&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/55426
* config/a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55426
--- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Feb 25 10:25:26 2014
New Revision: 208117
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208117&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/55426
* config/a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55426
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60358
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=58595
--- Comment #9 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Created attachment 32254 [details]
> gcc49-pr58595-2.patch
>
> So what about this variant?
I'll give this a bootstrap and test run, thanks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58595
--- Comment #10 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #9)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> > Created attachment 32254 [details]
> > gcc49-pr58595-2.patch
> >
> >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60408
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58595
--- Comment #13 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This patch bootstrapped on a Chromebook and passed regtest fine for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67439
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alan.lawrence at arm dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67439
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.9.4, 5.2.1, 6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67439
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67439
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
-mrestrict-it was introduced in 4.9 but it's enabled by default for
-march=armv8-a -mthumb. So, while -mrestrict-it did not exist for 4.8, this is
a regression from 4.8 as far as compiling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67439
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67456
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'll have a look at this testcase since it's the simplest one of them
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67465
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67481
--- Comment #1 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm testing a fix for PR 67456.
Hopefully they have the same root cause and the patch will fix them all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67462
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67462
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|target
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67492
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67439
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Sep 10 10:43:43 2015
New Revision: 227630
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227630&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR 67439: Allow matching of *arm32_mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67439
--- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed for trunk.
Will backport to 5 and 4.9 in a few days
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58517
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=67591
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
IRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Consider the two functions:
int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67628
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> This is due to the fold-const.c optimization which should not be there any
> more. You need to do benchmarking on x86 also if you rem
1101 - 1200 of 2246 matches
Mail list logo
