https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85805
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Jul 26 10:16:48 2018
New Revision: 262994
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262994&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine: Another hard register problem (PR85805)
The current code i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86640
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The RTL before combine looks very wrong, already, fwiw; it's wrong at
expand already (it makes the func return 255).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86640
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Oh, the function returns a char, never mind.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86640
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
All CONST_INTs are signed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86683
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I cannot reproduce this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86684
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I cannot reproduce this, either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86640
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Does this fix the problem / is it correct / etc. ?
diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
index cf12ace..bdd125e 100644
--- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
+++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
@@ -30065
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86640
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Or even
diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
index cf12ace..f5eece4 100644
--- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
+++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
@@ -30046,7 +30046,6 @@ arm_block_set_aligned_vect (r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86684
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I did try that.
Can you please give your config? Some repro instructions, maybe on a given
cfarm machine?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85160
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Jul 30 13:18:17 2018
New Revision: 263067
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263067&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine: Allow combining two insns to two insns
This patch allows c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85160
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Jul 30 16:11:44 2018
New Revision: 263072
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263072&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
testcase for 2-2 combine
gcc/testsuite/
PR rtl-optimizatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86640
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Jul 30 17:50:26 2018
New Revision: 263075
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263075&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
arm: Generate correct const_ints (PR86640)
In arm_block_set_aligne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86640
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Jul 31 14:01:29 2018
New Revision: 263114
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263114&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
arm: Testcase for PR86640
gcc/testsuite/
PR target/86640
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86771
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Could you trace this down to some bad code generated, at least?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86867
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86867
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I meant *test* comment. Doh.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86867
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I tagged #c2 as obsolete, and it is hidden, so this already works. Yay!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86867
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So "obsolete" works, and "offtopic" doesn't.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86882
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
combine creates a clobber of const_int 0 to make sure a pattern will
not match. That is valid RTL, but further patterns constructed from
that are not (clobber on a rhs).
The upper bits of a paradoxical
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86882
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So what is wrong about that? CONST_INTs are sign-extended always, so
0xff00 is just fine?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86892
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86684
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|2018-07-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86684
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Something wrong with that tarball then, maybe? Please try trunk.
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This does not happen on trunk, for powerpc-* (-mspe does not exist). Without
-mno-spe it does not ICE, either.
Changing target to powerpcspe.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86684
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86684
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Also happens on native builds:
~/build/tot/gcc/f951 -quiet -Wall -W -O2 bounds_check_19.f90 -mabi=elfv2
-mlittle -mno-fprnd
Error: unrecognizable insn:
(insn 79 78 80 6 (set (reg:DI 175)
(unsp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86684
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|ppc64le-linux-gnu |powerpc*-*-*
Host|x86
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86684
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So, ignoring all the configury stuff: the problem is that TARGET_VSX does
not imply TARGET_FPRND. It should.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86771
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So, what is happening at all? What is different during/after combine, etc.?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86131
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86197
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Aug 10 20:14:11 2018
New Revision: 263477
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263477&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2018-06-19 Segher Boessenkoo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86197
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Aug 10 20:46:04 2018
New Revision: 263479
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263479&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2018-06-19 Segher Boessenkoo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86197
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 85160, which changed state.
Bug 85160 Summary: GCC generates mvn/and instructions instead of bic on aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85160
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85160
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86771
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So is it worse code, better code, is the testcase broken / suboptimal?
The haswell problem seems to be completely unrelated, so open a separate PR
please.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85645
--- Comment #16 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Aug 13 17:05:48 2018
New Revision: 263509
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263509&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2018-05-09 Segher Boessenko
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85645
--- Comment #18 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yes, and don't change resolution because something "seems".
00:00:00 |2018-08-18
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Confirmed. I have a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86987
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2018-08-17 0
||2018-08-20
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Confirmed (also on 64-bit, etc.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87018
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87026
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I have a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86771
--- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #13)
> It seems the safest way
> to split an instruction is to place the new instructions next to each other.
combine can only place new insns at i2 and i3, in either or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86771
--- Comment #16 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #14)
> Note there is also an issue with costs, if the cost is zero then it seems to
> behave like infinite cost.
0 means unknown cost. Any known cost is treated as at l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86771
--- Comment #17 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Please do the combine dumps with details enabled; these are pretty useless.
(-fdump-rtl-combine-all)
A C testcase would be very helpful, too (or some magic configure command
to run on some cfarm machin
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #18 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I have a patch.
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed||2018-08-21
Host|x86_64-linux-gnu|
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86771
--- Comment #20 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #19)
> Well insn_cost() uses COSTS_N_INSNS (1) for instructions with unknown (zero)
> costs. That's a reasonable default and gives more accurate cost comparisons,
> eg. 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87026
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87040
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87033
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64-linux-gnu-*, |powerpc*-*-*
|pow
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86771
--- Comment #21 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Aug 22 16:04:09 2018
New Revision: 263780
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263780&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ fix changelog ]
2018-08-22 Segher Boessenkool
PR rtl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87018
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Here is one way that works: (this is on gcc119):
Use bash as your shell.
export SHELL=/usr/bin/bash
export CONFIG_SHELL=/usr/bin/bash
export PATH=/opt/freeware/bin:$PATH
~/src/gcc/configure --disable-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87065
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87065
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So this is when trying
Trying 60, 63 -> 67:
60: r163:V4SI=r127:V4SI==r162:V4SI
REG_DEAD r127:V4SI
REG_EQUAL r127:V4SI==const_vector
63: r164:V4SI=r188:V4SI-r163:V4SI
67: r166:V4SI={
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87026
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Aug 23 12:40:14 2018
New Revision: 263810
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263810&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix recent bug in canonicalize_comparison (PR87026)
The new code te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87026
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86771
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.0 |8.3
--- Comment #22 from Segher Boe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86989
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Aug 24 10:49:27 2018
New Revision: 263829
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263829&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Check that the base of a TOCREL is the TOC (PR86989)
There
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86989
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Fixed on trunk; backports pending.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
--- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #12)
> (It really irks me that the PPC backend has backend behavior that depends on
> what assembler (or cross assembler) is available at configure time. It
> m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85805
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It is fixed for 9 yes, and I am still pondering it for 8. I guess that's
not going to happen.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87133
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Does not fail on powerpc64-linux, even with -mlittle -mabi=elfv2 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87133
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Actually, doesn't fail on powerpc64le-linux either. Well let me try some
brand spanking new tree...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87133
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
... Nope, works fine with trunk as well. You must be doing something you're
not telling us?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87133
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
lang_hooks.types.type_for_mode can return NULL, but emit_library_call_value
cannot handle that.
Why it fails on a cross and not natively, I don't know... target bug is
my guess.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86106
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc |powerpc*-*-*
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87149
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
That one works fine on both native and cross for me, too.
Please describe your config better? binutils version, libc version, exact
configure command, to start with?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87133
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It's a different symptom, but sure, might be related. Somehow your toolchain
thinks it is a newer ISA but not compliant to older ISAs :-/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87149
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I have reproduced it.
||2018-08-30
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87149
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So both -Q --help=target as well as -fverbose-asm say -mfprnd is on; but the
ICE is because TARGET_FPRND is _off_. What.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87149
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So, so far I have only reproduced it if I configure the compiler for
ppc64le-linux
(not powerpc64le-linux), _and_ I have no working assembler for that. Is that
your situation, too?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87149
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
There are three things going wrong:
1) You configure without having an assembler available. This will disable
various features in your compiler. The same happens on e.g. the x86 port.
2) We allow dis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86684
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Aug 31 08:52:13 2018
New Revision: 264011
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264011&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Make lrounddi2 depend on TARGET_FPRND (PR86684)
TARGET_FPR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87149
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Aug 31 08:52:13 2018
New Revision: 264011
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264011&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Make lrounddi2 depend on TARGET_FPRND (PR86684)
TARGET_FPRN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87164
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87164
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Caused by r263614.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87224
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64le-linux |powerpc*-*-*
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87224
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The *mov_hardfloat64 pattern has constraint Y without also having Z.
Patch in testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82982
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82407
Bug 82407 depends on bug 82982, which changed state.
Bug 82982 Summary: [8/9 Regression] ICE: qsort checking failed (error: qsort
comparator non-negative on sorted output: 5) in ready_sort_real in haifa
scheduler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82982
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Erm, not Will. Everyone :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86771
--- Comment #23 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Sep 12 16:23:01 2018
New Revision: 264245
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264245&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport PR86771 fix to 8
2018-09-12 Segher Boessenkool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86771
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86989
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Sep 12 17:58:31 2018
New Revision: 264246
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264246&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport patch for PR86989 to 8
2018-09-12 Segher Boessenkool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86989
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Sep 12 18:01:11 2018
New Revision: 264247
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264247&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport patch for PR86989 to 7
2018-09-12 Segher Boessenkool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86989
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87289
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Do things work if you add the -fno-strict-aliasing compiler flag?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87224
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Sep 14 15:24:47 2018
New Revision: 264316
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264316&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Add another Z to go with Y (PR87224)
This is another case w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87224
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Sep 14 15:52:23 2018
New Revision: 264320
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264320&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport PR87224 fix to 8
Backport from trunk
2018-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87224
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I have a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86882
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Sep 18 16:19:56 2018
New Revision: 264400
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264400&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Handle CLOBBER in reg_overlap_mentioned_p (PR86882)
Combine will pu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86882
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Sep 18 16:24:58 2018
New Revision: 264401
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264401&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport PR86882 fix to 8
PR rtl-optimization/86882
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86882
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1001 - 1100 of 3228 matches
Mail list logo
