https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88629
--- Comment #5 from Cheng Wen ---
This bug got assigned CVE-2018-20712
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89147
--- Comment #2 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> >Possible workarounds are welcome.
>
> Use -ffat-lto-objects or use a .s file.
Thank you for reply!
Adding a `-ffat-lto-objects` to the command above
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89148
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |target
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88669
--- Comment #6 from martin ---
Thanks for fixing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88596
--- Comment #5 from Arseny Solokha ---
Created attachment 45579
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45579=edit
Testcase #2
At least, this one fails on godbolt.
% x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc-9.0.0-alpha20190127 -O1 -fschedule-insns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88596
--- Comment #4 from Arseny Solokha ---
I still can w/ r268327, on Ivy Bridge and Haswell. It ICEs only w/ this
particular argument to --param selsched-max-lookahead, though. Playing w/
-f{,no-}stack-protector{,-strong,explicit} gave me nothing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
--- Comment #10 from Jiangning Liu
---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #9)
> But since GCC emits infinite loops regardless of whether or not
> they have any side-effects, whether inc() is pure or not may not matter.
I think "for (; it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89126
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The problem is in shorten_compare() in c-common.c which deals with these cases.
The comment above the block that handles this has this to say just above the
conditional that guards the code. The conditional
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43565
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87022
--- Comment #7 from bin cheng ---
Given this is an regression, now I backported the fix to GCC-8 at r268441.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87022
--- Comment #6 from bin cheng ---
Author: amker
Date: Fri Feb 1 03:11:08 2019
New Revision: 268441
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268441=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2018-10-15 Bin Cheng
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88932
--- Comment #7 from bin cheng ---
Author: amker
Date: Fri Feb 1 02:56:41 2019
New Revision: 268440
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268440=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2019-02-01 Bin Cheng
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88932
--- Comment #6 from bin cheng ---
Author: amker
Date: Fri Feb 1 02:39:52 2019
New Revision: 268439
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268439=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/88932
* tree-predcom.c (try_combine_chains): Get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
--- Comment #8 from Feng Xue ---
My mistake, transformation should be:
void f (std::map m)
{
for (auto it = m.begin (); it != m.end (); ++it) {
if (b) {
b = do_something();
} else {
++it;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
Feng Xue changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||innat_xue at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89145
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
--- Comment #5 from Jiangning Liu ---
The loop below should be treated as a finite loop,
for (iter = booktable.begin(); iter!=booktable.end(); ++iter) {
...
}
so there is a chance to optimize away the empty loop, in which do_something
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88983
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.5
Summary|ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88983
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Feb 1 00:30:46 2019
New Revision: 268438
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268438=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/88983 - ICE with switch in constexpr function.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89148
Bug ID: 89148
Summary: [AVR] Merge plugin to place C++ vtables in flash
memory
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89137
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 31 23:05:01 2019
New Revision: 268434
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268434=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/89137
* omp-low.c (lower_omp_task_reductions): Drop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89147
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>Possible workarounds are welcome.
Use -ffat-lto-objects or use a .s file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89077
--- Comment #8 from Harald Anlauf ---
OK, here's another one for fun:
program pr89077_4
implicit none
character(*), parameter :: s = 7HForward
print *, '#', s, '#', len (s)
end program pr89077_4
prints:
#Forward # 8
This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89147
Bug ID: 89147
Summary: flto removes functions implemented in asm
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88983
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88983
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
I except to have a fix in a bit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89146
Bug ID: 89146
Summary: arm: "nor" constraint prefers memory reference over
constant
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88669
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88669
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu Jan 31 22:21:28 2019
New Revision: 268432
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268432=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-01-31 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/88669
* resolve.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89077
--- Comment #7 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #6)
Playing around and getting completely lost during a gdb session,
I became suspicious that the second issue has to do with missed
padding that interestingly occurs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88983
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
I think I see the problem: we're evaluating the body of the switch, and cond is
"1" so we're jumping over everything until we find "case 1":
if (1)
{
case 1:;
return = 1;
}
else
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89145
Bug ID: 89145
Summary: GCC does not assume that two different external
variables have different addresses
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86487
--- Comment #11 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to avieira from comment #10)
> Hi Vlad,
>
> I don't think it is a duplication.
Sorry, I was not clear. My comment relates to test
#include
int32x2_t b(long c, ...) {}
$ arm-none-eabi-gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89008
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89008
--- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Jan 31 21:55:45 2019
New Revision: 268431
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268431=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-01-31 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
2018-01-31
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89143
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45578
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45578=edit
gcc9-pr89143.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88983
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89071
--- Comment #12 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Peter Cordes from comment #10)
> It also bizarrely uses it for VMOVSS, which gcc should only emit if it
> actually wants to merge (right?). *If* this part of the patch isn't a bug
>
> -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88983
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80864
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] |[7/8 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80864
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Jan 31 20:21:11 2019
New Revision: 268428
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268428=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/89083, c++/80864 - ICE with list initialization in template.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89083
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89083
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Jan 31 20:21:11 2019
New Revision: 268428
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268428=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/89083, c++/80864 - ICE with list initialization in template.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89071
--- Comment #11 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Jan 31 20:06:42 2019
New Revision: 268427
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268427=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/89071
* config/i386/i386.md (*extendsfdf2):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88296
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88296
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> for Vlad the question
> is just whether r266862 is a real fix or just made it latent. Given that
> both are IRA costs changes, I assume it is a real fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89084
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Fails this assertion:
1892 gcc_checking_assert (vnode->definition);
(gdb) p vnode
$3 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89143
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #6)
> Checking with FreeBSD developers on C99 compliance.
The answer is 'no'. FreeBSD's C runtime libraries
(libc+libm) are not fully C99 complaint. It is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89084
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89144
Bug ID: 89144
Summary: GCC emits undefined references when a constexpr
initializer_list appears in a template function
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88917
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89127
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
I see what you mean. It might perhaps be useful to mention the bigint rule of
thumb in the manual. At the same time, the warning still doesn't work even
under this restricted interpretation. For example,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89143
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89143
Bug ID: 89143
Summary: [9 Regression] comparison of abs(i) against excessive
constant less than UXXX_MAX no longer folded
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87864
Johannes Pfau changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||johannespfau at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88917
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88150
Johannes Pfau changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||code at dawg dot eu,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87451
--- Comment #11 from Steve Ellcey ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> (In reply to Steve Ellcey from comment #9)
> Looks like that's because of different expected comment characters,
> # vs. // in your file. The pattern for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88596
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87295
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
It seems that this breaks debug-types-sections w/o LTO as well now.
./xgcc -B ./ -O2 -g ~/tramp3d-v44.ii -fdebug-types-section
/aux/hubicka/tramp3d-v4b.cpp:56088:1: internal compiler error: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89122
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Thu Jan 31 18:09:29 2019
New Revision: 268426
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268426=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix bogus fix-it for FLT_MAX (PR c/89122)
PR c/89122 reports that we emit a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89122
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89142
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #31 from Matthew Malcomson ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #30)
> (In reply to Matthew Malcomson from comment #29)
> > I've been working on a patch that does very similar to the draft patch
> > posted
> > above, and I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89142
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78314
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|nsz at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78314
--- Comment #14 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #13)
> (In reply to nsz from comment #12)
> > i don't know how to change this to false for IEEE_SUPPORT_HALTING
> > on aarch64 and arm targets, but that would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89142
Bug ID: 89142
Summary: Allow poisoning identifier from the command line
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88107
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89008
--- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Jan 31 17:14:36 2019
New Revision: 268425
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268425=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-01-31 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
2018-01-31
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88596
--- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha ---
I'll check it on the next trunk snapshot and report back next Monday.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #30 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Matthew Malcomson from comment #29)
> I've been working on a patch that does very similar to the draft patch posted
> above, and I notice a few things I've tried to avoid in it.
> I doubt there
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78314
--- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to nsz from comment #12)
> i don't know how to change this to false for IEEE_SUPPORT_HALTING
> on aarch64 and arm targets, but that would be a possible fix.
--cut here--
Index:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89138
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88596
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89136
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #5)
> Thanks for finding and reporting this.
You are welcome. I was testing new clang-8.0.0-rc1
and hadn't compiled gcc with clang for a while.
clang warns for "=+"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
Matthew Malcomson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matmal01 at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78314
--- Comment #12 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
this got reverted because of bug 88678
and because compile time and runtime support_halting are different.
the compile time value is unconditionally true, which is wrong for
aarch64 and arm:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86487
--- Comment #10 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi Vlad,
I don't think it is a duplication. I believe this PR is caused by an issue with
'uses_hard_regs_p' and paradoxical subregs. I proposed a patch in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86487
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89141
Bug ID: 89141
Summary: Documentation of -H ignores effect of include guards
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88752
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] ICE in |[8 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88932
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019, amker.cheng at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88932
>
> bin.cheng changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88752
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jan 31 15:03:21 2019
New Revision: 268424
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268424=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/88752 - ICE with lambda and constexpr if.
In this testcase, we look
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89139
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88932
bin.cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker.cheng at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89140
Bug ID: 89140
Summary: libiberty/pex-unix.c fails to compile in
aarch64-to-x86_64 cross build
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89139
Bug ID: 89139
Summary: GCC emits code for static functions that aren't used
by the optimized code
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89104
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #5)
> I agree backend specific warnings are not ideal but it's unclear whether a
> better solution exists beyond just not emitting these warnings at all and
> letting the user
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89104
--- Comment #5 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> I really don't like these aarch64 warnings, declare simd is an optimization
> (admittedly with ABI consequences) and warning about this by default is
> weird,
> + it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88394
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Related to e.g. PR89138 - lambdas and VLAs don't play nicely together right
now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88932
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88988
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] ICE: |[8 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89116
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89008
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Jan 31 13:53:06 2019
New Revision: 268422
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268422=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-01-31 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/89008
*
1 - 100 of 148 matches
Mail list logo
