https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Pretty certain the problem is in this chunk:
if (bump == 0)
{
tree lhs = gimple_assign_lhs (c->cand_stmt);
gassign *copy_stmt = gimple_build_assign (lhs, basis_name);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt ---
OK, sure, that is quite possible. Seems like something that should have popped
up before, but I guess the information gathered from the old cand->stmt must
have been harmless.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt ---
This is the only spot where we don't do an in-situ replacement. Testing a
patch to fix that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #16 from Bill Schmidt ---
Ah, that's not it at all. This is much more subtle. This has to do with
candidates that have alternate interpretations (as either a CAND_ADD or a
CAND_MULT). We fix up the candidate that we replace, but no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #17 from Bill Schmidt ---
The following fixes the reduced test case. Could you please test it on the
full 416.gamess build? I'll regstrap it on x86-64 and ppc64le.
Index: gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #20 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Mar 29 12:56:26 2017
New Revision: 246567
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246567&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-03-29 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/80158
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80108
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to kelvin from comment #2)
> I'm seeking consensus on the "right thing to do". Should I make sure that
> -mpower9-minmax turns on whatever additional target options are necessary in
> order to make t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80108
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
For stage 4, fixing this particular error combination (along with what Mike
suggests) should be enough. There is a vast array of ridiculous option
combinations that should no doubt be rejected, but let's not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79905
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
In rs6000.c: rs6000_handle_altivec_attribute(), the altivec(vector__) attribute
is used to assign V4SI_type_node as the associated type in this case.
V4SI_type_node has a canonical type field that points to i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79905
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
But hm, build_vector_type calls make_vector_type which canonicalizes using
type_hash_canon, so this seems ok. Perhaps the problem is with the V4i type?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79905
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
I believe the problem has to do with the basic integer type for SI mode
changing hash values after it is first created. I stopped in make_vector_type
for all vectors created with 4 elements, and found three o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79905
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61837
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
Also needs to hoist the "addi 8,4,-1" out to permit this. That instruction is
also invariant.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69992
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Hm, does your simplification remove the possibility of overflow that could
occur with intermediate results?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69992
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
I guess the next step would be to step through why iv_number_of_iterations
thinks this loop could never terminate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80376
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #2 from B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80376
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
It's difficult to completely avoid an ICE, as once we have a nested call with
an invalid value it is not simple to recover with our current design. However,
I will put together a patch that provides better er
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80376
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Patch under test would produce the follow errors instead:
wschmidt@pike:~/src$ $GCC_INSTALL/bin/gcc pr80376.c
pr80376.c: In function 'main':
pr80376.c:12:5: error: argument 3 must be a 2-bit unsigned literal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80357
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80357
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80357
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
That revision enabled -fsched-pressure by default, so it may have been latent
with -fsched-pressure before then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80357
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> (In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #6)
> > That revision enabled -fsched-pressure by default, so it may have been
> > latent with -fsched-pressure before then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80382
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
You didn't fill in the target. 32/64-bit, little-/big-endian?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79712
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
||2017-04-11
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
Confirmed. This is just due to a silly typo.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80401
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
That transformation will definitely degrade performance...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80315
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Apr 11 21:37:16 2017
New Revision: 246859
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246859&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-11 Bill Schmidt
PR target/80376
PR target/80
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80376
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Apr 11 21:37:16 2017
New Revision: 246859
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246859&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-11 Bill Schmidt
PR target/80376
PR target/80
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80376
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Backports still needed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80315
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Backports still needed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80376
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Apr 12 13:37:30 2017
New Revision: 246873
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246873&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-12 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
2017-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80315
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Apr 12 13:37:30 2017
New Revision: 246873
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246873&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-12 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
2017-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80376
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Apr 12 13:45:27 2017
New Revision: 246874
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246874&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-12 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
2017-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80315
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Apr 12 13:45:27 2017
New Revision: 246874
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246874&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-12 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
2017-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80315
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80376
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
While investigating a performance loss due to vectorization, I noticed that the
cost model doesn't properly account fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80430
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80401
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Looks like r246854 is very relevant. Thanks, Vlad!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82337
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Sep 29 14:55:14 2017
New Revision: 253293
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253293&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-09-29 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/82337
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82337
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
Fixed in trunk so far. Backports to follow after a few days of burn-in.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82337
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Oct 2 18:07:45 2017
New Revision: 253359
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253359&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-10-02 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82337
--- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Oct 2 18:09:20 2017
New Revision: 253360
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253360&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-10-02 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82337
--- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Oct 2 18:10:40 2017
New Revision: 253361
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253361&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-10-02 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82337
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81924
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Yeah, that looks like a backporting oversight.
I'll have a look after I recover from the post-vacation email slog.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81924
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
The patch applies cleanly to gcc-6-branch, and I can certainly commit that
(although I can't show a case where it can happen with present behavior, it
should be cleaned up).
For gcc-5-branch, the patch doesn'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81924
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81924
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Matthias, the following appears to fix this problem for gcc-5-branch.
Obviously the branch is closed to further development, but if you want to
consider carrying this patch, let me know and I will give it a f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81924
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Er, HERE is the simple patch:
Index: gcc/config/rs6000/vsx.md
===
--- gcc/config/rs6000/vsx.md(revision 253957)
+++ gcc/config/rs6000/vsx.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81924
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
,
||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
CCing Will (fallout from moving this function to gimple expansion).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79845
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81386
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Where does this one stand now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63491
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
It may be latent for a while -- the same problem exists with GCC 7. (Well,
technically with branches/ibm/gcc-7-branch.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81363
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> This went away with r250295 which reverted some earlier commit. Was the
> patch reverted because of this LRA ICE, or for some other reason. I.e. can
> we close i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81158
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
That would make sense. I think this can be closed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83253
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Apologies for not responding sooner -- I've been out of pocket for the last
week. I'll have a look when I get unburied (probably next week).
Bill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72827
--- Comment #25 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Sep 1 14:43:55 2016
New Revision: 239938
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239938&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-09-01 Bill Schmidt
Michael Meissner
PR ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72827
--- Comment #26 from Bill Schmidt ---
The original patch direction was impossible to make work, as with a base
register of r31 (frame pointer) and an offset register of r0 (not allowed as a
base register), there is no legitimate way to update the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72827
--- Comment #28 from Bill Schmidt ---
Just recording that, as expected, this patch had neutral performance on
SPECcpu2006.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71199
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Yu Xuanchi from comment #6)
> So I think in short term. We just reject those code. Because our aim is to
> support this feature like clang. If there is no any problem. I'll go impl it.
Agreed, we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77289
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77613
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77613
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77613
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
This is simple enough. We have code to allow splats in pure-SIMD ranges, but
we are missing a pattern that performs a splat and a truncate in the same
operation. Should have a patch to submit today.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77613
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Sep 16 21:28:52 2016
New Revision: 240199
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240199&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-09-16 Bill Schmidt
PR target/77613
* con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77613
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71309
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Probably related to PR74585. In both cases we have full stores followed by
partial loads, and DSE isn't able to figure out the store is dead as a result.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71709
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
Working on the backports. Stay tuned.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71709
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Sep 28 21:35:37 2016
New Revision: 240598
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240598&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-09-28 Bill Schmidt
Alan Modra
Backport f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71709
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Sep 28 21:36:59 2016
New Revision: 240599
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240599&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-09-28 Bill Schmidt
Alan Modra
Backport f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77824
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
Eric, thanks for the report! I'll have a look. Much obliged. This used to
work several years ago...
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu
Gimple if-conversion is aggressive about converting PHIs to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77824
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
Ah, the passes have moved around some since I last looked at this. This used
to follow a dom pass, so the code for copies didn't kick in any more at that
point. So it's understandable that the copy propagati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77824
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Eric, can you please provide a test case where you are seeing the unpropagated
copies? Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
Thanks, Richard! I appreciate the analysis, as I wasn't really sure what the
proper fix should be here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77824
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77824
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
I've done some poking around, and I see copies showing up frequently in some of
GCC's own libraries, as well as in SPEC CPU2006 code. With a patched compiler
to key on SSA_NAME for copies, I've seen that many
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77916
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77824
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Oct 10 18:39:41 2016
New Revision: 240945
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240945&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-10 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/77824
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77824
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Does not reproduce on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu. Can you please report the
target triple?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
--- Comment #5 from B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
OK, I can reproduce now, and understand the problem better. This patch fixes
the problem. I'll regstrap it and get it committed shortly.
Index: gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c
==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Oct 13 01:08:20 2016
New Revision: 241082
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241082&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-12 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/77937
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Keeping this open until the fix has some burn-in time, planning to backport to
GCC 6 and 5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Oct 13 15:34:22 2016
New Revision: 241125
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241125&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-13 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/77937
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
Just saw your request to include the test case. I will do this but may ask you
to review the dejagnu bits for accuracy for your target, as these don't fire on
arches I regularly build for.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Oct 13 19:50:41 2016
New Revision: 241139
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241139&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-13 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/77937
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937
--- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Oct 17 14:22:22 2016
New Revision: 241243
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241243&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-10-17 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937
--- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Oct 17 14:24:21 2016
New Revision: 241244
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241244&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-10-17 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77916
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Oct 17 22:08:56 2016
New Revision: 241281
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241281&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-10-17 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/77916
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77916
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Oct 18 13:35:19 2016
New Revision: 241305
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241305&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-18 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/77916
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77916
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Oct 19 13:35:14 2016
New Revision: 241342
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241342&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-19 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/77916
P
1001 - 1100 of 1697 matches
Mail list logo
