https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #19 from Segher Boessenkool ---
With that above patch, I get (T0 is original, T2 is with patch, these are
file sizes of a Linux build, mostly defconfig):
T0T2
alpha 6049096 100.020%
arc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #21 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #20)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #18)
> > Created attachment 47841 [details]
> > Patch to treat sign_extend as is_just_move
>
> Do you think z
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93583
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The line where things crash is
rtx temp = gen_reg_rtx (GET_MODE (valreg));
but presumably valreg is just 0 here?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #22 from Segher Boessenkool ---
T0T2T3T4
alpha 6049096 100.020% 100.018% 100.001%
arc 4019384 100.000% 99.989% 99.989%
arm 14177962 99.999% 99.999%
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93168
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #6)
> Segher: did the above patch fix it for your terminal?
I haven't found time to test it on all those systems yet, no.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93932
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So the issue is that input_operand allows too much?
Other patterns that could use such a fix are float2,
floatuns2, movsd_store, movsd_load,
*vsx_le_permute_, vsx_set_v1ti, vsx_extract__var,
vsx_extract
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93012
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92342
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Gimple can help writing silly expressions like this in a more canonical
form (whatever we decide to use for that) at least, yeah. But you can
not do RTL's job in gimple ;-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92656
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The whole reg_stat thing cannot ever reliably track known bits. We need
some other mechanism to do this, something that *is* reliable, and does
not give different results if you try combinations in a di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92656
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The is no simple solution, yeah. It may be possible to have a simple change
that results in better code on average, but that will be marginal :-/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87560
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This code is unmodified since 2016, and we didn't change the flag handling
afair.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91799
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
commit 9b46c7543834c1a2004321dbf487fce29e015aae
Author: Segher Boessenkool
Date: Wed Jul 10 21:58:36 2019 +
fix pr88233.c
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr88233.c
b/gcc/testsu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91799
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Apparently I missed committing the above. Will do later, when I am
awake again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91797
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
commit 6cad71cf330623d4a01cb1bb77d4398b1674c776
Author: Segher Boessenkool
Date: Wed Jul 10 21:58:08 2019 +
fix pr68805.c
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr68805.c
b/gcc/testsu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91797
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This and PR88233 were lost somewhere behind the sofa ;-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91797
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I don't think I marked this as P1, fwiw, I hardly ever prioritise bugs,
and I would never make a test tweak a P1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93981
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93974
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #5 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93981
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Pretending any asm can throw would be a pretty serious code degradation.
Any asm that is not volatile cannot throw (and be correct code). But
most volatile asm in the wild can never throw, either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93981
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to jwjagersma from comment #5)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
> > Pretending any asm can throw would be a pretty serious code degradation.
> >
> > Any asm that is not volat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91799
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I hadn't fully tested it yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91799
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56927
Bug #: 56927
Summary: 4.7.2 build ICEs when built with 4.8.0 and
--disable-bootstrap
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56927
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool 2013-04-11
19:25:05 UTC ---
Forgot to mention... I debugged this a little; it happens during
the build of the 32-bit libgcc, and gdb says
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
build
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56927
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool 2013-04-12
00:15:26 UTC ---
Hey, 4.7.3 didn't exist yet :-)
Confirmed fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57062
Bug #: 57062
Summary: genattrtab reports errors in wrong file
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
||2013-05-10
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
That is because read_name (in read-md.c) considers the ':' in
'' as termi
||2013-05-10
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yes, it's a bug.
The various places in caller-save.c that test cached_reg_save_code[...] != 0
s
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |segher at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #16 from Segher Boessenkool 2012-08-14
16:44:09 UTC ---
Mine.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54142
--- Comment #18 from Segher Boessenkool 2012-08-14
22:54:35 UTC ---
Right, but
%{!mpowerpc*: %(asm_default)}} \
instead, since the -mpower option is no more.
I didn't even pick the wrong condition branch there: the original
code does not do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54142
--- Comment #19 from Segher Boessenkool 2012-08-16
00:57:44 UTC ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Aug 16 00:57:37 2012
New Revision: 190427
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190427
Log:
2012-08-15 Segher Boessenkool
gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54142
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||WONTFIX
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool 2012-08-16
10:12:11 UTC ---
Nothing will ever use the MQ register anymore: all support for
the old POWER ISA has been removed, and PowerPC does not have
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||FIXED
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool 2012-08-16
10:26:21 UTC ---
Indeed, closing as fixed.
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||FIXED
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool 2012-08-16
10:34:42 UTC ---
Current mainline does:
memset:
addi 5,5,1
li 9,0
mtctr 5
b .L2
.L3:
stbx 4,3,9
||2012-08-16
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool 2012-08-16
10:39:45 UTC ---
Still happens on mainline: -O2 still has the superfluous sign-extend,
but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54284
Bug #: 54284
Summary: -mabi=ieeelongdouble problems
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54540
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54670
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
||2012-09-25
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||FIXED
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool 2012-09-25
07:27:27 UTC ---
Fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53266
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53266
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool 2012-09-25
11:44:42 UTC ---
> I haven't built GCC on the AIX 4.3 (PowerPC 604) system lately, but my scripts
> are set up to do so using
>
> --with-cpu=powerpc --disable-aix64 --disable-powercpu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53087
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool 2012-09-26
05:18:49 UTC ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Sep 26 05:18:43 2012
New Revision: 191752
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191752
Log:
gcc/
PR target/51274
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51274
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool 2012-09-26
05:18:49 UTC ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Sep 26 05:18:43 2012
New Revision: 191752
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191752
Log:
gcc/
PR target/51274
PR
||2012-09-26
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool 2012-09-26
05:33:44 UTC ---
Still happens.
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool 2012-09-26
05:35:06 UTC ---
Fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53087
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53266
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool 2012-09-26
05:49:09 UTC ---
Sorry, I didn't notice this was for 4.7 -- the removal of all
suport for the POWER ISA is only on mainline, and won't be
backported. Could you test mainline instead? All
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53266
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool 2012-09-26
06:43:41 UTC ---
Yes, mainline is SVN trunk.
There are weekly snapshots on http://gcc.gnu.org/snapshots.html (just
get the newest one, it should be more than new enough for this).
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |segher at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool 2012-10-23
16:10:34 UTC ---
Things become a little clearer if you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27619
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55033
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54589
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yeah, that's not going to happen.
Will it help to do some define_split or define_insn_and_split for this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67288
--- Comment #16 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Many things in combine assume that they can move an earlier insn to later,
if none of the registers it uses is set in the intermediate insns (etc.)
This isn't correct if you make combine work on EBBs.
||2018-12-10
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Confirmed; mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88416
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88145
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Dec 11 08:30:36 2018
New Revision: 266973
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266973&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Don't use rs6000_isa_flags_explicit for soft float tests (PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88134
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88134
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I cannot get that to fail either, with a trunk compiler :-/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88134
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
AT12.0 however, like on godbolt, does in fact crash.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88134
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
And none of the compilers I built crash. (Most have checking enabled, but some
not, so that's not it either).
||2018-12-11
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Ah yes, I had release checking there. Confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88001
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Created attachment 45210
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45210&action=edit
proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88001
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Claudiu: could you test that patch please? (On the real thing, not just
this testcase :-) )
||2018-12-12
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Confirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88311
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88311
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
$ ~/build/tot/gcc/cc1 -quiet -Wall -W -O2 hello2.c -mlongcall -m32
...
main:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
stwu 1,-16(1)
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
.reloc .+2,R_PPC_PLT16_HA,printf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88318
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Dec 12 19:45:45 2018
New Revision: 267063
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267063&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix independent-cloneids-1.c testcase (PR88318)
The testcase uses R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88318
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Component|other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88001
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Patch posted at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-12/msg00865.html .
||2018-12-12
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Confirmed.
We here have an unconditional branch that is not followed by a barrier:
first there is a
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This builds fine for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88470
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So the edge is a fake edge? Can you test for that instead, like the code
in cfgcleanup.c immediately following this already does?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88001
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Dec 14 08:29:34 2018
New Revision: 267122
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267122&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
match_asm_constraints: Use copy_rtx where needed (PR88001)
The new
|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed||2018-12-14
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Host|Macos, Windows |
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88001
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Sure this can be backported... But can you fill in known-to-{work,fail}
then please? Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88001
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Sat Dec 15 12:05:08 2018
New Revision: 267171
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267171&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from trunk
2018-12-14 Segher Boessenkool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88001
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Sat Dec 15 12:07:42 2018
New Revision: 267172
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267172&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from trunk
2018-12-14 Segher Boessenkool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88001
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49884
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88213
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Godbolt now has the C compiler frontend as well, without -xc shenanigans, fwiw.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88213
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84101
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I think subreg should deal with this. What do you mean "there aren't
any half of TImode subregs"? insn 10 has it split at the start, and
insn 18 at the end wants it split, too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84101
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
But that is exactly the kind of thing lower-subreg is supposed to do?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88213
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I'll take it. Patch is testing.
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88213
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Dec 19 13:54:08 2018
New Revision: 267263
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267263&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Restrict a VSX extract to TARGET_POWERPC64 (PR88213)
This pattern o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88213
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Dec 19 14:02:52 2018
New Revision: 267264
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267264&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from trunk
2018-12-19 Segher Boessenkool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88213
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Dec 19 14:04:22 2018
New Revision: 267265
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267265&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from trunk
2018-12-19 Segher Boessenkool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88213
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88134
--- Comment #17 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Like this:
===
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
index 5120202..429eac5 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
@@ -38865,7 +38865,9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88134
--- Comment #18 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Or, if you want your compiler to build:
===
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
index 5120202..c041f15 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88134
--- Comment #20 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The original problem doesn't fail for me also if I use a glibc >= 2.19
(I used 2.28).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16798
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This is the same problem as PR88233.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18395
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2018-12-23
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The testcase needs -m32. Confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88308
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This is related to PR88347.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88027
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It's fixed now? Aaron, does this still need backports? Or can this PR be
closed :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88618
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
401 - 500 of 3228 matches
Mail list logo
