https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106878
--- Comment #19 from Alex Coplan ---
(In reply to Alex Coplan from comment #18)
> So for backports, it sounds like we want r13-2658 without the verify_gimple
> changes, and the other two patches as is. Is that right? Would it make sense
> to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106878
--- Comment #18 from Alex Coplan ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> Just note this had various follow-ups.
> r13-2658
> r13-2709
> r13-2891
> at least.
So for backports, it sounds like we want r13-2658 without the verify_gimple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106878
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.4|11.5
--- Comment #17 from Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106878
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106878
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Just note this had various follow-ups.
r13-2658
r13-2709
r13-2891
at least.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106878
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
--- Comment #14 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106878
vvinayag at arm dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vvinayag at arm dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106878
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||julien.staub at se dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106878
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13 Regression] ICE: |[11/12 Regression] ICE:
