https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> CCing authors of the other commits. That said, complaining about size
> regressions generally should be only if it (significantly) increases sizes
> of some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66382
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
-*-*,
||powerpc64-*-*
Priority|P3 |P1
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Also on powerpc64-linux.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70422
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70429
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70134
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70422
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Created attachment 38121
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38121&action=edit
patch on top of the original patch
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> Presumably the C++ FE s
||2016-04-03
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It also leaves gnattools/config.cache and an empty gotools/ .
Confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70173
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Apr 4 16:37:58 2016
New Revision: 234721
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234721&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gnattools: Clean config.cache (PR70173)
The config.cache file shoul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70568
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70568
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
sradi, that is.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70173
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Apr 11 07:26:36 2016
New Revision: 234874
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234874&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libcc1: Clean compiler-name.h (PR70173)
Since the file is generated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70173
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Apr 13 18:02:08 2016
New Revision: 234954
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234954&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Make distclean clean up more (PR70173)
Currently, distclean does no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70672
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68814
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
*** Bug 70672 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70672
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68814
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70668
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Apr 28 16:50:41 2016
New Revision: 235583
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235583&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
nds32: Fix casesi (PR70668)
Expanders do not have more elements in
||2016-04-28
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Fixed on trunk, backports pending.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68803
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70173
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This is fixed on trunk now. Does it need backports?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65317
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Compiling the following with current trunk:
===
void g(int);
void f1(int x)
{
if (x) {
g(x--);
} while (x);
}
void f2(int x)
{
if (x
||2016-05-09
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Confirmed (with arm-linux-gnueabi, -O2 to reproduce). Mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71028
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue May 10 23:31:27 2016
New Revision: 236106
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236106&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
cfgcleanup: Handle a branch with just a return in both arms (PR71028
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71050
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
No, please go ahead, I couldn't find an easy way out. The generic
code is hell-bent on using a subreg of the DF reg.
The backend won't necessarily use any nop here btw, but the testcase
should be pret
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67483
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri May 13 23:01:40 2016
New Revision: 236232
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236232&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine: Don't call extract_left_shift with count < 0 (PR67483)
If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71118
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Okay, looking...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71118
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This is caused by https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg01445.html .
After the change, the hard (argument) register is no longer propagated
into the (set (int reg) (subreg of fp reg)), and then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71180
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71294
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It also fails on BE. It needs -O3 -fstack-protector -mcpu=power8 to fail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71309
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #1 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71310
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60818
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boes
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
/home/segher/src/gcc/gcc/expr.c: In member function 'virtual void
move_by_pieces_d::generate(rtx, rtx, machine_mode)':
/home/segher/src/gcc/gcc/expr.c:1146:60: error: unused param
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71310
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This happens because of
/* Find the smallest nice mode to use. */
for (mode = GET_CLASS_NARROWEST_MODE (MODE_INT); mode != VOIDmode;
mode = GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE (mode))
if (GET_MODE_BITSI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71310
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Well, the code for picking the representative already has computed
the maximum size allowable under the C++11 model there (in maxbitsize).
But this loop always picks the smallest it can. That probably i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71310
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Jun 10 23:58:09 2016
New Revision: 237319
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237319&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
fold-const: Don't access bit fields with too big mode (PR71310)
Cur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71510
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I cannot reproduce this problem; bootstrap went without a hitch, both
with and without those --with-*.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71509
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> It looks like we didn't adjust the bitfield read paths for the mem model
> because in practice it doesn't matter and it may generate larger/slower code
> no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71375
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
aix52.h overrides TARGET_EXTRA_BUILTINS (sets it to 0); aix43.h and
aix51.h do not. They probably should.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81324
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
That works fine. Thanks Ian!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81423
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Jul 19 19:28:41 2017
New Revision: 250363
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250363&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
simplify-rtx: The truncation of an IOR can have all bits set (PR8142
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81423
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Jul 19 19:31:26 2017
New Revision: 250365
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250365&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine: Fix for PR81423
We here have an AND of a SUBREG of an LSHI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81317
--- Comment #19 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Randy MacLeod from comment #18)
> 2. The "smaller reproducer with manual work-around " DOES STILL result in an
> ICE as does the libjpeg-turbo build as you'd expect.
I still cannot reprodu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81317
--- Comment #21 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Hrm, those ?? are a bit worrying, is that normal on x86_64-linux
(that is what this is, as host?)
I also don't see line numbers.
||2017-07-22
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Confirmed. The problem is introduced in the swaps pass; cc:ing Bill.
(It needs -mcpu=power8 -mabi
ponent: go
Assignee: ian at airs dot com
Reporter: segher at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: cmang at google dot com
Target Milestone: ---
"make distclean" does not rmdir gotools because the files
gotools.log.sent, gotools.sum.sent are still there (afte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81427
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81548
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
That's a very good question. I don't know; I tried to fix it but gave up.
All I know is gotools/ is the only did not removed by distclean, because
the two .sent files are left.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81548
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Well, distclean does rm -rf $(TARGET_SUBDIR); which takes care of a
lot (in the root generated Makefile). Everything else is in gcc/, not
sure where that is deleted; gotools/ has the only .sum/.log ou
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The new testcase g++.dg/ipa/pr80212.C fails, at least on powerpc64-linux:
cc1plus: error: maximum value of parameter 'partial-inlining-entry-probability'
is 100
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81548
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yup, that does the trick. Thanks Ian.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80551
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It apparently started failing last week of January 2017. Only 64-bit
fails, -m32 is fine.
I don't know where that missing function name is coming from.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81625
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81753
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
rs6000-p8swap.o as well :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81766
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81747
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
Tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81747
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yeah, but the condition in which BRANCH_EDGE is called starts with
if (EDGE_COUNT (previous_bb_in_path->succs) == 2
so I'm confused now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81747
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yeah, I found out it is _not_ the one the backtrace (or GDB) points at.
I have a patch:
===
diff --git a/gcc/cse.c b/gcc/cse.c
index 6a968d1..34650d2 100644
--- a/gcc/cse.c
+++ b/gcc/cse.c
@@ -6642,6 +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80938
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpcspe-*-linux-gnu* |powerpcspe-*-linux-gnu*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80503
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Is this a dup of PR80618? That is fixed on all branches already.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81753
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boes
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I have a patch (for rs6000).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81423
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Aug 9 21:05:45 2017
New Revision: 251004
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251004&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Testcase for PR81423
gcc/testsuite/
PR rtl-optimization/814
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80938
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Aug 9 21:08:33 2017
New Revision: 251005
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251005&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Use SAVE_MULTIPLE only if we restore what it saves (PR80938)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81423
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Aug 9 21:52:30 2017
New Revision: 251011
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251011&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
This time with the file added.
Testcase for PR81423
gcc/testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80938
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Fixed on trunk for rs6000; backports pending.
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Fixed on trunk.
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
gcc.dg/compare2.c fails (at least on powerpc64-linux) since at most a few
days with:
FAIL: gcc.dg/compare2.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/compare2.c case 20 (test for warnings, line
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The new testcases gcc.dg/pie-static-[12].c fail on powerpc-linux:
spawn -ignore SIGHUP /home/segher/build/tot/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/segher/build/tot/gcc/
/home/segher/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80551
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Why disable it? Can the feature not work, can the test not work?
Disabling the test is papering over the problem as far as I see.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80551
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Why can't the unwinder find the function name here?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81793
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Rainer: what I reported _is_ a target issue, and fixed by Alan's r251065.
powerpc-linux supports static and pie just fine. Your patch is also good,
but a separate issue!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81931
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81931
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Confirmed with that testcase, thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81931
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #9)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Fixes testcase. Untested otherwise.
>
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssanames.c b/gcc/tree-ssanames.c
> index 676
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81953
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It's a good idea to move it to inside the conditional, just not
to behind the function call.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81996
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81996
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82016
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82024
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
What were the original insns? (combine dump shows that right at the
start, with the insn costs for-em).
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I have a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82024
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Sep 1 16:54:53 2017
New Revision: 251607
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251607&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine: Fix for PR82024
With the testcase in the PR, with all the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82024
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Known to fail|8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80700
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #3)
> I don't think my patch is the cause of the problem, more like it just
> exposed more problems in the SPE code. After RA, we call into LRA to spill
> a pseud
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80700
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
LR and CTR together are a register class -- they both can be used as jump
target, in the same way. Converting LR to be a fixed register is not going
to be trivial, either.
But, where does it come from
*-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2017-09-14
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
For range tests, one of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81317
--- Comment #26 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I still can't reproduce the problem, and I don't see where the null
pointer is coming from either. Someone who can reproduce the problem
will have to do some debugging. Sorry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82192
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
As far as I know this is undefined; combine should avoid making such
out-of-range patterns (unless the existing insns are already like that,
it will happily make even bigger garbage then).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82192
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I'll check if this patch regresses code quality on any target. Looks
good though, thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82192
--- Comment #16 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> Also, stripped gcc/*.o files from the latest stage between non-patched and
> patched differ just in the expected combine.o and cc1*checksum.o.
I see no co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77729
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77687
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Sep 20 21:48:31 2017
New Revision: 253033
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253033&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Don't touch below the stack pointer (PR77687)
With the 32-b
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I have a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43763
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
--- Comment #16 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Sat Apr 15 04:11:35 2017
New Revision: 246939
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246939&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Testcase 20050830-1.c no longer fails (PR66612)
Bin's comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
Bug 62173 depends on bug 66612, which changed state.
Bug 66612 Summary: [6/7/8 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/20050830-1.c
scan-assembler bdn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80429
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Apr 19 10:03:35 2017
New Revision: 246991
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246991&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
IRA: Don't create new regs for debug insns (PR80429)
In split_live_
1401 - 1500 of 3228 matches
Mail list logo
