[Bug tree-optimization/94125] [9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

2020-03-24 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94125 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Known to work|

[Bug tree-optimization/94125] [9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

2020-03-24 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94125 --- Comment #13 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Bin Cheng : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:95c969e58f7905b14d3f2889cf41595eb2c13cbb commit r9-8411-g95c969e58f7905b14d3f2889cf41595eb2c13cbb Author: Bin Cheng Date:

[Bug tree-optimization/94125] [9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

2020-03-18 Thread rguenther at suse dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94125 --- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 18 Mar 2020, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94125 > > --- Comment #11 from bin cheng --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)

[Bug tree-optimization/94125] [9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

2020-03-18 Thread amker at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94125 --- Comment #11 from bin cheng --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10) > Thanks Bin, fixed on trunk sofar. Hmm, if it's fine, I will backport this to GCC9. Thanks

[Bug tree-optimization/94125] [9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

2020-03-16 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94125 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[9/10 Regression] wrong |[9 Regression] wrong code