https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99889
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i at maskray dot me
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110729
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61747
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #8)
> * g++.target/i386/pr61747.C: New testcase.
The testcase fails now, I don't know what caused it to fail though:
FAIL: g++.target/i386/pr61747.C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110759
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110759
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f32518726ee8e836d12d49aec8432679fcc42503
commit r14-2695-gf32518726ee8e836d12d49aec8432679fcc42503
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110744
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |tree-optimization
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110744
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a6654c08fde11890d621fa7831180d410054568a
commit r14-2694-ga6654c08fde11890d621fa7831180d410054568a
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Fri Jul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110729
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6894581ac453361e3fb4e1ffd54f9499acb87466
commit r14-2693-g6894581ac453361e3fb4e1ffd54f9499acb87466
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Fri Jul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80574
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> One thing I noticed is that:
> _2 = MAX_EXPR <_6, a3_7(D)>;
> _3 = MAX_EXPR <_2, a3_7(D)>;
>
> Is not optimized at all.
>
> (for minmax (min max)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98375
Bug 98375 depends on bug 89701, which changed state.
Bug 89701 Summary: Provide -fcf-protection=branch,return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89701
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89701
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89701
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1c6231c05bdccab3a21abcbb75e2094ea3e98782
commit r14-2692-g1c6231c05bdccab3a21abcbb75e2094ea3e98782
Author: liuhongt
Date: Fri May
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110759
--- Comment #8 from Patrick O'Neill ---
Awesome, thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110759
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110759
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110759
--- Comment #5 from Patrick O'Neill ---
Linux target rv32gc-ilp32d, rv64gc-lp64d.
Newlib still builds successfully.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110759
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
What exact target? Is this the elf target or the linux target?
I just bootstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu and it works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
--- Comment #16 from xuli1 at eswincomputing dot com ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #12)
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2023, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
> >
> > --- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110612
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110455
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86656
Bug 86656 depends on bug 110433, which changed state.
Bug 110433 Summary: ASAN reports mismatching new/delete when compiling analyzer
testcases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110433
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110433
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110387
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110455
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a4913a19d24a794c97f38d9c65c47c1fb9f2140c
commit r14-2690-ga4913a19d24a794c97f38d9c65c47c1fb9f2140c
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110433
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7006f02bbc3f1d0b7ed7fe2122abc0896aa848d2
commit r14-2689-g7006f02bbc3f1d0b7ed7fe2122abc0896aa848d2
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110612
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7006f02bbc3f1d0b7ed7fe2122abc0896aa848d2
commit r14-2689-g7006f02bbc3f1d0b7ed7fe2122abc0896aa848d2
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110387
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5a0aff76a9980488a760ece72323e7ed1f2c0e5e
commit r14-2688-g5a0aff76a9980488a760ece72323e7ed1f2c0e5e
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110664
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110760
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Krister Walfridsson from comment #3)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > I thought we decided that vector types don't apply the overflow rules and
> > always just wrap ...
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110760
--- Comment #3 from Krister Walfridsson ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I thought we decided that vector types don't apply the overflow rules and
> always just wrap ...
That makes sense. But on the other hand, PR 110495 is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110664
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Yes, this would be a bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110756
--- Comment #2 from Thiago Jung Bauermann
---
Ah! Thanks for the analysis. Should I submit the following patch to the mailing
list then?
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/gomp/pr58567.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/gomp/pr58567.C
index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110760
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|slp introduces new wrapped |slp introduces new overflow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110760
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I thought we decided that vector types don't apply the overflow rules and
always just wrap ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110754
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1)
> > Is this a bug? The standard defines accessing volatile objects as
> > side-effects so it's not allowed to merge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110754
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Seems like lowering passes everything via value rather than some stuff by
reference
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110760
Bug ID: 110760
Summary: slp introduces new wrapped arithmetic
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110754
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-07-20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110754
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110759
--- Comment #3 from Patrick O'Neill ---
It may have broken other targets - I can only confirm with builds for RISCV so
I didn't want to speculate too much
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110759
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't see how it could have broke riscv only ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110759
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Summary|IEEE Fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110759
--- Comment #1 from Patrick O'Neill ---
Created attachment 55593
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55593=edit
Failing build log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110759
Bug ID: 110759
Summary: IEEE Fortran change broke RISC-V linux build
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110758
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect this is most likely the profile updates changes ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110758
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||26163
Version|13.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
--- Comment #15 from JuzheZhong ---
I am wondering: do we have have other situations need "undef" value to do
optimizations? If yes, I am aggree with Richard that we need to support "undef"
value. But "undef" value in Gimple IR support would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110758
Bug ID: 110758
Summary: 8% hmmer regression on zen1 and zen3 with -Ofast
-march=native -flto between g:8377cf1bf41a0a9d
(2023-07-05 01:46) and g:3a61ca1b9256535e (2023-07-06
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110757
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110757
Bug ID: 110757
Summary: 7% parest regression on zen3 -Ofast -march=native
-flto between g:4dbb3af1efe55174 (2023-07-14 00:54)
and g:a5088dc3f5ef73c8 (2023-07-17 03:24)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110756
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||testsuite-fail
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110756
Bug ID: 110756
Summary: [14 Regression] commit g:92d1425ca78 causes failures
in g++.dg/gomp/pr58567.C
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80574
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
One thing I noticed is that:
_2 = MAX_EXPR <_6, a3_7(D)>;
_3 = MAX_EXPR <_2, a3_7(D)>;
Is not optimized at all.
(for minmax (min max)
(simplify
(minmax:c (minmax:c@2 @0 @1) @0)
@2))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110755
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection, wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110755
--- Comment #2 from Aurelien Jarno ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Hmm, this might be the case where you need -frounding-math since we don't
> expectly implement the pragma.
Indeed the original glibc code is compiled with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110755
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, this might be the case where you need -frounding-math since we don't
expectly implement the pragma.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91425
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
The biggest issue here is that the both ifcombine (and reassociate) and phiopt
does not touch the case where there could be a trapping oeprator to move it and
combine it with a previous operator. This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110755
Bug ID: 110755
Summary: Wrong optimization of fabs on ppc64el at -O1
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110717
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Though, grepping tmp-mddump.md files shows only x86 having ashlti3 and ashrti3
expanders.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110717
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110754
Bug ID: 110754
Summary: assume create spurious load for volatile variable
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110658
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95947
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7bd1373f87d581b1e5482f9c558d481c38027a99
commit r11-10918-g7bd1373f87d581b1e5482f9c558d481c38027a99
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110658
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7bd1373f87d581b1e5482f9c558d481c38027a99
commit r11-10918-g7bd1373f87d581b1e5482f9c558d481c38027a99
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110717
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|ubizjak at gmail dot com |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95947
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5279d2db0c4ace4f8d311d9c875d51a0fe7b40ea
commit r12-9782-g5279d2db0c4ace4f8d311d9c875d51a0fe7b40ea
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110658
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5279d2db0c4ace4f8d311d9c875d51a0fe7b40ea
commit r12-9782-g5279d2db0c4ace4f8d311d9c875d51a0fe7b40ea
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110717
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b50a851eef4b70aabf28fa875d9b2a302d17b66a
commit r14-2684-gb50a851eef4b70aabf28fa875d9b2a302d17b66a
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106103
Ivan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.3.0
Known to fail|11.3.0
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 8:17 AM Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 7:47 AM Drew Ross via Gcc-bugs
> wrote:
> >
> > PR middle-end/101955
> >
> > gcc/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * match.pd (x << c) >> c -> -(x & 1): New simplification.
> >
> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110748
--- Comment #9 from Vineet Gupta ---
(In reply to Vineet Gupta from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #5)
> > I'd bet it's const_0_operand not allowing CONST_DOUBLE.
>
> Correct.
>
> > The question is what unintended side
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110748
--- Comment #8 from Vineet Gupta ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #5)
> I'd bet it's const_0_operand not allowing CONST_DOUBLE.
Correct.
> The question is what unintended side effects we'd have if we allowed
> CONST_DOUBLE 0.0 in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110748
--- Comment #7 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to palmer from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #5)
> > I'd bet it's const_0_operand not allowing CONST_DOUBLE.
> >
> > The question is what unintended side
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110748
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44949
Graeme Smecher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gsmecher at threespeedlogic
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110197
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
Looks like this issue isn't specific to constexpr array construction:
struct Currency {
constexpr Currency(int) { }
};
constexpr int f() { return __builtin_is_constant_evaluated(); };
struct A {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103902
--- Comment #12 from Thiago Jung Bauermann
---
I confirmed that this fixed the failures I was seeing. Thanks again!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110748
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110753
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE in meet_with_1, at |[14 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110364
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:506f068e7d01ad2fb107185b8fb204a0ec23785c
commit r14-2681-g506f068e7d01ad2fb107185b8fb204a0ec23785c
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110753
Bug ID: 110753
Summary: ICE in meet_with_1, at ipa-cp.cc:1057
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110748
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
aarch64 has the following function to check for +0.0:
```
/* Return TRUE if rtx X is immediate constant 0.0 (but not in Decimal
Floating Point). */
bool
aarch64_float_const_zero_rtx_p (rtx x)
{
/* 0.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110114
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
The GCC 13 branch is frozen so I'll put this aside for now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55572|0 |1
is obsolete|
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 7:47 AM Drew Ross via Gcc-bugs
wrote:
>
> PR middle-end/101955
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * match.pd (x << c) >> c -> -(x & 1): New simplification.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * gcc.dg/pr101955.c: New test.
> ---
> gcc/match.pd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110315
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Macleod ---
Created attachment 55591
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55591=edit
potental patch
I've attached Aldy's patch for PR109695 which he had backported to GCC13 back
in May.
This does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110114
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14 Regression] ICE on |[13 Regression] ICE on
My mailer clipped off the top of the commit message:
Simplifies (x << c) >> c where x is a signed integral type of
width >= int and c = precision(type) - 1 into -(x & 1). Tested successfully
on x86_64 and x86 targets.
PR middle-end/101955
gcc/ChangeLog:
* match.pd (x << c) >> c
PR middle-end/101955
gcc/ChangeLog:
* match.pd (x << c) >> c -> -(x & 1): New simplification.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.dg/pr101955.c: New test.
---
gcc/match.pd| 9 +
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr101955.c | 62 +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110114
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2cb0dc866e8f95151df5d759157708108e850dd9
commit r14-2677-g2cb0dc866e8f95151df5d759157708108e850dd9
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110752
Bug ID: 110752
Summary: decltype in lambda loses const qualifier unless lambda
is mutable
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 20 Jul 2023, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
>
> rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 20 Jul 2023, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
>
> --- Comment #11 from JuzheZhong ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110204
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
--- Comment #11 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #10)
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2023, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
> >
> > --- Comment #9 from JuzheZhong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110204
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d0de3bf9175877d6c51c94fe04662c6e031876e1
commit r14-2674-gd0de3bf9175877d6c51c94fe04662c6e031876e1
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 20 Jul 2023, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
>
> --- Comment #9 from JuzheZhong ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
--- Comment #9 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #8)
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2023, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
> >
> > --- Comment #6 from JuzheZhong ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 20 Jul 2023, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
>
> --- Comment #6 from JuzheZhong ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from
1 - 100 of 168 matches
Mail list logo
