https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90029
Bug ID: 90029
Summary: optimizing local exceptions, or are they an observable
side effect
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90008
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88150
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
I've now reworked my non-dlpi_tls_modid patch to include this after
Solaris 11.[345]/x86 testing gave excellent and pretty much identical
test results:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90028
--- Comment #5 from Ferruh YIGIT ---
Tested with latest gcc [1], same output.
[1] Compiled from source:
gcc (GCC) 9.0.1 20190409 (experimental)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90031
Bug ID: 90031
Summary: Bogus parse error trying to explicitly specialize a
template variable inside class scope
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90028
--- Comment #2 from Ferruh YIGIT ---
While preparing the support files for this report, via --save-temps, recognized
that generated .s file output is a little different, and correct assuming the
suspicion on source of the failure was right:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90032
Bug ID: 90032
Summary: [MSP430] reload uses wrong stack slot for variable
after setjmp/longjmp
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90028
--- Comment #1 from Ferruh YIGIT ---
Created attachment 46115
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46115=edit
19.05-rc1 -mno-avx512f gcc build on skylake
The build is done with changing the lib/librte_kni/Makefile as following:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90028
--- Comment #3 from Ferruh YIGIT ---
Created attachment 46116
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46116=edit
.i file generated by "--save-temps" param
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90028
--- Comment #4 from Ferruh YIGIT ---
Created attachment 46117
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46117=edit
.s file generated by "--save-temps" param
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90008
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Apr 9 18:50:39 2019
New Revision: 270236
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270236=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90008 remove unused capture from variant rel ops
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89851
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P3
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88492
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86530
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90028
Bug ID: 90028
Summary: On Intel Skylake (-march=native) generated avx512
instruction can be wrong
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #51 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #50)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #48)
> > Perhaps that redefinition of _Atomic should be guarded with
> > #if (__STDC_VERSION__ < 201112L) ||
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90032
--- Comment #2 from Jozef Lawrynowicz ---
Created attachment 46120
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46120=edit
tester.i ira dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88915
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tnfchris at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65930
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88259
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53294
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||federico.kircheis at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90029
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90027
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90032
--- Comment #3 from Jozef Lawrynowicz ---
Created attachment 46121
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46121=edit
tester.i reload dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90032
--- Comment #4 from Jozef Lawrynowicz ---
Created attachment 46122
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46122=edit
tester.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86504
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90030
Bug ID: 90030
Summary: Fortran OpenACC subarray data alignment
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #35 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #33)
> (In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #32)
> >
> > Either I drop the warning or I keep the hunk in eh_personality.cc - any
> > preferences /
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89851
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
--- Comment #24 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Thanks for the patch, I'll test it fully tomorrow.
I'll open a separate bug for the FreeBSD issue. We could use more fine-grained
configure checks so that most C99 math functions are enabled, even if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90032
Jozef Lawrynowicz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46118|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90027
--- Comment #2 from vfdff ---
for deja testcase: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010518-2.c
as the struct a_struct define with __attribute__ ((packed)), so the member
variable b also not aligned with 4 bytes, is this case undefined behavior ?
typedef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90034
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
wait4 is waiting for child process to finish. You need to do strace with -f
option to follow the forks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90029
--- Comment #2 from Federico Kircheis ---
Thank you for your answer, I need to learn better how to search for related
bugs.
The bugs you linked do surely answer my question, but they do not cover exactly
the same requests.
1) optimize dead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=448
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|netbsd, SymbianOS, LynxOS, |SymbianOS, LynxOS, QNX, TPF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90033
Bug ID: 90033
Summary: [concepts] ICE segfault evaluating a requires clause
that transitively depends on itself
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
fink at snaggledworks dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fink at snaggledworks dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #44 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #43)
> The problem with your suggestions Segher is that we'd have to do them for
> every target which defines insns with a zero_extract destination and that's
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
--- Comment #25 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 08:24:29PM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
>
> --- Comment #24 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> Thanks for the patch, I'll test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90034
Bug ID: 90034
Summary: gcc hangs on wait4 after vfork after opening tmp file
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90021
--- Comment #1 from bin cheng ---
Sorry for the breakage, I will have a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46108
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46108=edit
Reduced test-case #0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90021
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90021
Bug ID: 90021
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in index_in_loop_nest, at
tree-data-ref.h:587 since r270203
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89893
--- Comment #33 from 康 珊 ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #32)
> I can confirm it works for me with:
>
> diff --git a/common.gypi b/common.gypi
> index 9502e92..3d8f04f 100644
> --- a/common.gypi
> +++ b/common.gypi
> @@ -195,8 +195,8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #42 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I filed an APPLE bug report:
https://bugreport.apple.com/web/?problemID=49727047
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90015
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 9 06:38:07 2019
New Revision: 270221
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270221=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/90015
* config/riscv/riscv.c (riscv_get_interrupt_type):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90022
Bug ID: 90022
Summary: Issue with CFI_is_contigous and CFI base address
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90022
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89893
--- Comment #34 from Martin Liška ---
> It seems your solution works. But it doesn't work if I add
> "-fno-strict-aliasing" through 'export CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -O3
> -fno-strict-aliasing..." export CXXFLAGS="$CXXFLAGS -O3
> -fno-strict-aliasing..."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90018
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64965
Rasmus Villemoes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #41 from Iain Sandoe ---
inconclusive so far, it's agreed that _Atomic is not a C++ keyword, but not
clear what is best solution to the SDK use.
If you filed a radar, please copy the number here (no-one else can see it, but
at least
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90012
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90013
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90023
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
I bisected GCC 4.9.x branch and it started with r215059, which is a backport of
3 patches. I reverted changes in:
patching file gcc/recog.c
patching file gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c
patching file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46109
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46109=edit
Reduced test-case #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90015
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90023
Bug ID: 90023
Summary: The coverage of a label is incorrect when it is after
a return statement and followed by a blank statement
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90010
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #47 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Erik Schnetter from comment #46)
> The patch does not include the generated files. You need to run "genfixes"
> in the "fixincludes" directory after applying the patch.
the one I put above has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #48 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Perhaps that redefinition of _Atomic should be guarded with
#if (__STDC_VERSION__ < 201112L) || defined(__cplusplus)
or so, so that for C -std=c11 you still get _Atomic?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #49 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #48)
> Perhaps that redefinition of _Atomic should be guarded with
> #if (__STDC_VERSION__ < 201112L) || defined(__cplusplus)
> or so, so that for C -std=c11 you still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90011
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 9 13:19:16 2019
New Revision: 270229
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270229=gcc=rev
Log:
PR translation/90011
* typeck2.c (check_narrowing): Remove trailing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90018
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
>
> Please use GCC 8 branch, not trunk. The problem only shows up on GCC 8
> branch.
I can confirm that with r265453 I see:
*** Miscompare of cam4_validate.txt; for details see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90018
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90011
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #17 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #16)
> (In reply to kugan from comment #15)
> > (In reply to Wilco from comment #11)
> > > There is also something odd with the way the loop iterates, this doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89998
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 9 10:26:13 2019
New Revision: 270224
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270224=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/89998
* gimple-ssa-sprintf.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90011
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 9 10:27:14 2019
New Revision: 270225
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270225=gcc=rev
Log:
PR translation/90011
* ipa-devirt.c (compare_virtual_tables):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88809
Peter Cordes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter at cordes dot ca
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #18 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to kugan from comment #12)
> (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #10)
> > (In reply to kugan from comment #9)
> > > Created attachment 46040 [details]
> > > patch
> >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
So looking at one issue I can see is code-hoisting hoisting
MEM[(struct window *)window_6(D) + -5B].contents across a call that might
not return. This can only happen for calls we can alias-disambiguate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90010
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> I bisected GCC 4.9.x branch and it started with r215059, which is a backport
> of 3 patches. I reverted changes in:
> patching file gcc/recog.c
> patching file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90024
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90010
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |diagnostic
--- Comment #4 from Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89998
--- Comment #10 from gandalf at winds dot org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Fixed for trunk. As a workaround I'd suggest using a correct prototype or
> -fno-builtin-sprintf if you intentionally use a different one.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90017
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-debug
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #34 from Jakub Jelinek ---
@@ -30877,6 +30883,11 @@ arm_valid_target_attribute_rec (tree args, struct
gcc_options *opts)
else if (!strncmp (q, "arm", 3))
opts->x_target_flags &= ~MASK_THUMB;
+ else if (!strncmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89972
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #16 from Wilco ---
(In reply to kugan from comment #15)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #11)
> > There is also something odd with the way the loop iterates, this doesn't
> > look right:
> >
> > whilelo p0.s, x3, x4
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90010
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90021
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90025
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46112
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46112=edit
gcc9-pr90025.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90018
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
However, '--size=test' helps here, fails quickly. With the revision, there 2
files are difference: mapz_module.fppized.o.s and optics_lib.o.s.
I suspect the later one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89972
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Looking at
struct S { long a[0] __attribute__ ((aligned (32))); };
long double u;
void baz (struct S *);
void bar (long double x, struct S y, long double z)
{
u = x + z;
baz ();
}
this doesn't ICE, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90007
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
We have a pseudo:SI<-hardreg:SI assignment followed by
pseudo:DF<-float(pseudo:SI) conversion, and we substitute the latter through
the former, creating a pseudo:DF<-float(hardreg:SI) insn that fails in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89972
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Looking at
> struct S { long a[0] __attribute__ ((aligned (32))); };
> long double u;
> void baz (struct S *);
> void bar (long double x, struct S y, long double z)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #43 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
The problem with your suggestions Segher is that we'd have to do them for every
target which defines insns with a zero_extract destination and that's been the
well understood way to handle this stuff for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89972
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> > So, do we want to ignore the TYPE_EMPTY_P arguments even for argument
> > alignment computations (both at the caller and callee)?
>
> We should ask it in x86-64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89972
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #7 from Marek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89972
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
That'd be much appreciated, I was puzzled as to what we should do when I first
took a look at this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90018
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Looking at the rev. and the context I figured the original caller was
added for a case that can no longer happen (SAME_DR_STMT set, that
can never happen since we rewrote interleaving chain detection for
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
