https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329
--- Comment #17 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 04:40:08PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > Since we applied the fix for PR 87689 to gcc 7, gcc 8 and gcc 9,
> > I would suggest that we make -fno-optimize-sibling-calls
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86444
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
Created attachment 46308
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46308=edit
Fix-ix86_expand_sse_comi_round.patch
Fix ix86_expand_sse_comi_round and add runtime tests for it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89750
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
Created attachment 46307
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46307=edit
Fix-ix86_expand_sse_comi_round.patch
Fix ix86_expand_sse_comi_round and add runtime tests for it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90370
Bug ID: 90370
Summary: Does 0 correspond to a POSIX errno value for
std::system_category?
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90370
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is the cause of the issue described in 4.10 of https://wg21.link/p0824r1
(but the presentation there is wrong: the comparison semantics are clearly
defined, the implementation divergence is in whether
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90271
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon May 6 21:50:14 2019
New Revision: 270924
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270924=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/88709
PR tree-optimization/90271
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon May 6 21:50:14 2019
New Revision: 270924
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270924=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/88709
PR tree-optimization/90271
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90290
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon May 6 23:24:32 2019
New Revision: 270928
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270928=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-05-06 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/90290
* match.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90349
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90367
--- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #8)
> > This looks very similar to bug 87072. The C test case below is diagnosed by
> > GCC 9, 8, and 7.
> >
> > $ cat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #9 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
I did the test suggested, the results was as follows
A. gcc-8.2.0
B. gcc-9.1.0
C. gcc-9.1.0 -fno-jump-tables
D. gcc-9.1.0 patched "max_ratio_for_size = 2"
Overall CSiBE was
A: 2 413 510 bytes
B: 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90323
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
From the combine dump of without_sel:
Trying 8, 9 -> 10:
8: r127:V4SI=r124:V4SI^r131:V4SI
REG_DEAD r131:V4SI
9: r122:V4SI=r127:V4SI:V4SI
REG_DEAD r130:V4SI
REG_DEAD r127:V4SI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78010
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90323
--- Comment #3 from Shawn Landden ---
Instead:
.globl without_sel
.type without_sel, @function
without_sel:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
xxlxor 36,34,36
xxland 36,36,35
xxlxor 34,34,36
blr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90367
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Ganea ---
Created attachment 46306
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46306=edit
preprocessed source
Please see attachement.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90323
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #6 from Segher
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90367
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Ganea ---
...and the command-line:
/usr/bin/c++ -DGTEST_HAS_RTTI=0 -D_GNU_SOURCE -D__STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS
-D__STDC_FORMAT_MACROS -D__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS -Ilib/Target/AMDGPU
-I/mnt/f/svn/llvm/lib/Target/AMDGPU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90367
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90367
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
I doubt there is anything GCC can do it here in a reasonable fashion.
I will let someone else reduce the testcase in a reasonable way that shows the
problem. Most likely GCC decided that FindAndConstruct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90323
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90367
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
Changing DenseMapBase's
ValueT [](const KeyT )
To:
{
const KeyT Key = t;
return FindAndConstruct(Key).second;
}
This will cause the warning to go away.
This comes from:
RemapSwizzle[i] =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90363
--- Comment #2 from Stafford Horne ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #1)
> Trying 13 -> 14:
>13: r51:QI=[r50:SI+low(`*.LANCHOR0')]
> REG_DEAD r50:SI
>14: r43:SI=zero_extend(r51:QI)
> REG_DEAD r51:QI
> Failed to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90323
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc |powerpc*-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78010
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90323
--- Comment #2 from Shawn Landden ---
Created attachment 46305
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46305=edit
test case.
These two functions should produce identical code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90367
--- Comment #7 from Alexandre Ganea ---
I used the following GCC version for preprocessing/compiling:
$ /usr/bin/c++ --version
c++ (Ubuntu 7.3.0-27ubuntu1~18.04) 7.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90367
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90323
--- Comment #4 from Shawn Landden ---
that was compiled with -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90369
Bug ID: 90369
Summary: error: could not unlink output file
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90367
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you attach the original preprocessed source?
the original case does look like it looks like a bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90367
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #8)
> This looks very similar to bug 87072. The C test case below is diagnosed by
> GCC 9, 8, and 7.
More to the point the line number of this reduced testcase is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90366
Roman Lebedev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90363
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #10 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
Tested also gcc-9.1.0 "max_ratio_for_size = 1" just out of curiosity
results was similar compared to gcc-8.2.0:
Overall CSiBE was
2 417 695 bytes (+4185 bytes, +0.17%)
Example file CSiBE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90312
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Known to fail|9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90331
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 6 07:38:26 2019
New Revision: 270900
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270900=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-05-06 Richard Biener
PR testsuite/90331
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90331
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90332
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64*-unknown-linux-gn |powerpc64*-unknown-linux-gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90328
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90356
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784
Qi Feng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ffengqi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90312
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon May 6 07:35:59 2019
New Revision: 270899
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270899=gcc=rev
Log:
Error only when a non-default -mabi is used with sanitizers (PR
sanitizer/90312).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90336
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90355
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90331
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90338
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90341
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90342
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90345
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90354
--- Comment #3 from vfdff ---
I work on GCC 7.3, in function scan_trace, control = pat->insn (0), so it only
check whether or not a jump_insn for the first insn of sequence.
for (prev = insn, insn = NEXT_INSN (insn);
insn;
prev =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #8 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
Ok, thannks, I will try to have a look at it later tonight (I'm at my regular
job now ;-)
Thanks/Fredrik
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89698
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 6 09:40:15 2019
New Revision: 270904
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270904=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-05-03 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2019-03-14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86984
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 6 09:40:15 2019
New Revision: 270904
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270904=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-05-03 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2019-03-14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90071
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 6 09:40:15 2019
New Revision: 270904
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270904=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-05-03 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2019-03-14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90360
Bug ID: 90360
Summary: Missed optimization: unnecessary use of callee-saved
registers
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90360
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Simplified test-case:
$ cat /tmp/csibe.c
int a;
int foo(char c) {
switch (c) {
case 'c':
return a;
case 's':
return 3;
case 'n':
return 1;
case '%':
return -2;
case 'o':
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90332
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Hmm, can't get the test to FAIL with a cross, somehow the dejagnu tests always
end up UNSUPPORTED. The testcase for x86_64 has
/* With AVX256 or more we do not pull off the trick eliding the epilogue. */
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90347
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90358
Bug ID: 90358
Summary: [10 Regression] 526.blender_r train run does not
finish after r270847 on znver1
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90358
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90358
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|9.0 |10.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89595
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 6 09:40:15 2019
New Revision: 270904
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270904=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-05-03 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2019-03-14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89595
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sat, 4 May 2019, mikpelinux at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89595
>
> Mikael Pettersson changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329
--- Comment #11 from Tomas Kalibera ---
Even restoring the state that LAPACK/BLAS works but without providing
guarantees would help short-term, and I think this could be in line with the
goal of best performance within the standard.
At least in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90357
Bug ID: 90357
Summary: [9 regression][MIPS] New FAIL:
gcc.c-torture/execute/20080502-1.c -O0 start with
r269880
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90346
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90357
--- Comment #1 from Paul Hua ---
Fix patch:
diff --git a/gcc/config/mips/mips.c b/gcc/config/mips/mips.c
index 1de33b2..89fc073 100644
--- a/gcc/config/mips/mips.c
+++ b/gcc/config/mips/mips.c
@@ -4849,6 +4849,7 @@ mips_split_move (rtx dest,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90343
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
> I'm curious how much can save following patch:
>
Plus how much can you cave with 9.1 and -fno-jump-tables?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Fredrik Hederstierna from comment #5)
> I use patched sources from
> http://gcc.hederstierna.com/csibe
I've just tried that but I see quite some compilation errors:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90328
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90359
Bug ID: 90359
Summary: [8 Regression] profiled bootstrap fails on
aarch64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90358
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 6 May 2019, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90358
>
> --- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90330
--- Comment #8 from Matt Thompson ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #7)
> (In reply to Matt Thompson from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #5)
> > > (In reply to Matt Thompson from comment #4)
> > > > Also: I do have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90341
--- Comment #4 from Kyle De'Vir ---
Here's what `-march=native` expands to:
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-march=native'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/9.1.1/cc1 -quiet - "-march=znver1" -mmmx
-mno-3dnow -msse -msse2 -msse3 -mssse3 -msse4a -mcx16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90354
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90357
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #5 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
I use patched sources from
http://gcc.hederstierna.com/csibe
I think you could download and try it out.
Toolchain I build with
https://github.com/fredrikhederstierna/buildbuddy
Otherwise I think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90327
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2019-05-03
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90358
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90358
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Created attachment 46302 [details]
> untested patch
>
> Does this help?
Yes, it helps. The affected file was:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90353
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 6 08:54:40 2019
New Revision: 270902
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270902=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-05-06 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/90316
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Summary|[8/9/10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90346
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90356
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89710
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 6 09:40:15 2019
New Revision: 270904
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270904=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-05-03 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2019-03-14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89711
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 6 09:40:15 2019
New Revision: 270904
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270904=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-05-03 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2019-03-14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90356
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46301
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46301=edit
gcc10-pr90356.patch
Full untested patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329
--- Comment #12 from Janne Blomqvist ---
(In reply to Tomas Kalibera from comment #11)
> At least in the case I debugged, I think gfortran could do better by not
> writing the 1 as string length to the place on the stack where the compiler
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90359
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90346
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90330
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Matt Thompson from comment #8)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Matt Thompson from comment #6)
> > > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #5)
> > > > (In reply to Matt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90362
Stafford Horne changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||or1k
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90364
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
