https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103221
Bug ID: 103221
Summary: evrp removes |SIGN but does not propagate the ssa name
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103218
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 51782
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51782=edit
patch in testing
Patch in testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102874
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
The proposed fix should be submitted to GCC and put it in
libffi/LOCAL_PATCHES after it is checked in.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103216
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> I am going to implement this. I think I only need the first conversion (and
> making sure cond goes away which leads to the second one) which should lead
> to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103220
Bug ID: 103220
Summary: missed casting issue with |/&?
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization, TREE
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103216
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103216
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103219
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 2022 (experimental) (GCC)
Can also check here: https://godbolt.org/z/r7TKr8MxW
Thanks,
Haoxin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103218
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
There is code in fold_ternary_loc which does:
/* A < 0 ? : 0 is simply (A & ). */
And this works as fold also does (a<0)<
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103218
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103216
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> For x86_64 we might be able to solve this at the RTL level during combine:
> (set (reg/v:QI 84 [ ])
> (if_then_else:QI (lt (subreg:QI (reg:SI 86 [ a ]) 0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103218
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103218
Bug ID: 103218
Summary: (a < 0) << signbit is not always optimized to a &
signbitmask at the gimple level
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102874
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103179
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103189
Bug 103189 depends on bug 103182, which changed state.
Bug 103182 Summary: [12 Regression] Recent change causes code correctness
regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103182
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103182
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103166
--- Comment #9 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Elaboration: there may be (newlib) targets (build/test setups) where the
test-setup can't link and thus erroneously gets a "yes" for these functions.
If that happens for you, look into fixing newlib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103182
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2f3d43a35155685b1795b4392e20e1c14a33c38f
commit r12-5221-g2f3d43a35155685b1795b4392e20e1c14a33c38f
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Sat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103166
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103166
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:60f761c7e54f96a287c73a71d0b09ee2b2f8426d
commit r12-5220-g60f761c7e54f96a287c73a71d0b09ee2b2f8426d
Author: Hans-Peter Nilsson
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20785
--- Comment #17 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Pavel M from comment #16)
> Note: The #pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS is unknown and ignored (leading to FP
> issues), however, the __STDC_IEC_559__ is defined to 1. Confused.
Yes, and IMHO, with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103216
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
For x86_64 we might be able to solve this at the RTL level during combine:
(set (reg/v:QI 84 [ ])
(if_then_else:QI (lt (subreg:QI (reg:SI 86 [ a ]) 0)
(const_int 0 [0]))
(ior:QI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99269
Dominique Martinet changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||npfhrotynz-ptnqh.myvf@noclu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103217
Bug ID: 103217
Summary: analyzer false positive on leak warning when using
indirect strdup
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103216
Bug ID: 103216
Summary: missed optimization, phiopt/vrp?
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 103176, which changed state.
Bug 103176 Summary: -foptimize-strlen causes stringop-overflow warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103176
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103176
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103193
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Fri, 12 Nov 2021, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs wrote:
> /* Simplify comparison of something with itself. For IEEE
>floating-point, we can only do some of these
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103212
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103209
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103209
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4d2d5565a0953eaa829d10006baf007cf33bab89
commit r12-5217-g4d2d5565a0953eaa829d10006baf007cf33bab89
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83646
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldot at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103070
Bug 103070 depends on bug 103058, which changed state.
Bug 103058 Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in gimple_call_static_chain_flags, at
gimple.c:1669 when building 527.cam4_r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103058
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102943
Bug 102943 depends on bug 103058, which changed state.
Bug 103058 Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in gimple_call_static_chain_flags, at
gimple.c:1669 when building 527.cam4_r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103058
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 103058, which changed state.
Bug 103058 Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in gimple_call_static_chain_flags, at
gimple.c:1669 when building 527.cam4_r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103058
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103058
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103182
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
What happens here is that we optimize the loop to memcpy and memcpy EAF flags
coming from fnspec are quite interesting. The copied argument is marked as
escaping but used only directly. This is correct but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103215
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20785
--- Comment #16 from Pavel M ---
Note: The #pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS is unknown and ignored (leading to FP
issues), however, the __STDC_IEC_559__ is defined to 1. Confused.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103207
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez ---
That is, is the overflowed 0 allowed in the switch's case?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102368
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note: Steve Lionel of Intel thinks the code in comment#0 is invalid.
But nvfortran, flang and crayftn all accept it without complaining.
@Bill: any more detailed thoughts how to resolve this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103215
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>Does double post-increment `if (type-- == name_and_type || type-- ==
>name_and_type)` have defined behaviour?
Yes as the || acts as a sequence point.
My bet is there is a (bad) transformation going on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103215
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 67901, which changed state.
Bug 67901 Summary: [concepts] overloading bug when considered more specialized
vs more constrained
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67901
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67901
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103195
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at suse dot cz
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100055
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lts-rudolph at gmx dot de
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96111
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98939
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
I'm having trouble with "Default template arguments are now complete-class
contexts":
class C {
template struct _List;
template struct S; // #1
template
struct S<_Sz, _List<_Uint, _UInts...>>;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103209
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Wow, what a bug :P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103209
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
This is bug I introduced to tree-ssa-structalias where I reversed order of
flags which deterine global memory read and writes. So pure functions are
handled as functions writting global memory but not reading
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103166
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103215
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Created attachment 51781
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51781=edit
orig.bug.c
Attaching orig.bug.c in case I corrupted original too much.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97048
Bug 97048 depends on bug 98465, which changed state.
Bug 98465 Summary: Bogus -Wstringop-overread with -std=gnu++20 -O2 and
std::string::insert
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98465
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98465
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|11.0|
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103215
Bug ID: 103215
Summary: [12 regression] gcc generates unexpected warnings on
libx11-1.7.2: error: array subscript -2 is outside
array bounds of
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103202
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103202
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:264f061997c0a5349cdce6d73f0dc167ac7fc8f4
commit r12-5216-g264f061997c0a5349cdce6d73f0dc167ac7fc8f4
Author: Aldy Hernandez
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103213
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98512
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 98871, which changed state.
Bug 98871 Summary: Cannot silence -Wmaybe-uninitialized at declaration site
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98871
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98871
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #12 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #11)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
>
> > Is there any case where the frontend would make 'data' point into the
> > middle of the array and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103166
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
There's no other patch as far as I know, so that would be great, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100583
--- Comment #4 from Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña ---
As pointed out in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103118#c3:
> What works is including them in a non-module unit translation unit.
>
> ```C++
> #if defined(__GNUC__) and not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103118
--- Comment #3 from Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña ---
What works is including them in a non-module unit translation unit.
```C++
#if defined(__GNUC__) and not defined(__clang__)
# include // Workaround GCC bug 103118.
# include//
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103186
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67901
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96111
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101149
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103118
--- Comment #2 from Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña ---
Or not. I forgot to uncomment uses of the chrono library.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> Is there any case where the frontend would make 'data' point into the
> middle of the array and iteration over the array would end up accessing
> elements
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102368
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103166
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103118
--- Comment #1 from Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña ---
To work around this
- Do not include ``.
- Explicitly import a module that exports its definitions when you need to use
the chrono library.
I use the headers above to compile a header unit,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103211
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
There is wrong change in my patch (I mixed up this_looping variable for
looping)
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-pure-const.c b/gcc/ipa-pure-const.c
index b831844afa6..5056850c0a8 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-pure-const.c
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103211
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Yes:
grep 'found to' * | grep master
unport.fppized.f.025t.nothrow:Function found to be nothrow: master.0.setfm
unport.fppized.f.084i.pure-const:Function found to be pure: master.0.setfm/8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84930
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Comment 3 was fixed in r11-7102.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103211
--- Comment #3 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103211
>
> --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
> Optimized dump differs for couple of functions in the same way:
>
> diff -u good bad
> ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103211
>
> --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
> Optimized dump differs for couple of functions in the same way:
>
> diff -u good bad
> --- good2021-11-12 17:42:36.995947103 +0100
> +++ bad 2021-11-12 17:41:56.728194961 +0100
> @@ -38,7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103211
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Optimized dump differs for couple of functions in the same way:
diff -u good bad
--- good2021-11-12 17:42:36.995947103 +0100
+++ bad 2021-11-12 17:41:56.728194961 +0100
@@ -38,7 +38,6 @@
;;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103202
--- Comment #10 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #9)
> Created attachment 51780 [details]
> patch in testing
The patch fixed real ed-1.17 test suite as well. Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103211
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
The following file is miscompiled with:
gfortran -c -o unport.fppized.o -O2 -march=skylake -g -std=legacy
-fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations unport.fppized.f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103214
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103214
Bug ID: 103214
Summary: Incorrect function signatures for
__builtin_ia32_pblendd* instructions
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102997
--- Comment #31 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> It likely was the loop header copying missing on cold loops then.
Yep. It is good we worked that out.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99657
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 103206 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103206
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103175
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103175
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4526ec20f17a6182f754da9460d9d944dd123cc0
commit r12-5201-g4526ec20f17a6182f754da9460d9d944dd123cc0
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93082
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103202
--- Comment #9 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 51780
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51780=edit
patch in testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103202
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84930
Will Wray changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wjwray at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103201
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f49c7a4fb23d82c89c97acec88770b300c903d9a
commit r12-5200-gf49c7a4fb23d82c89c97acec88770b300c903d9a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103201
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Stubbs ---
I did some preliminary testing on your patch: the libgomp.c/target-teams-1.c
testcase runs fine on amdgcn. I presume that that covers most of the existing
features of those runtime calls?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 89259, which changed state.
Bug 89259 Summary: liboffloadmic/runtime/offload_omp_host.cpp:692: pointless
test ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89259
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89259
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|ASSIGNED
1 - 100 of 192 matches
Mail list logo
