https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97390
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Error compiling acc data|[OpenAError compiling acc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97027
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97379
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 97379, which changed state.
Bug 97379 Summary: [11 Regression] Invalid read of size 8 at
outgoing_range::calc_switch_ranges(gswitch*) (gimple-range-edge.cc:140) since
r11-3685-gfcae5121154d1c33
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97386
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f76949cee9560d04d5417481dbcda5ca089c9ebc
commit r11-3855-gf76949cee9560d04d5417481dbcda5ca089c9ebc
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97350
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
In WPA we seem to see the store to vector:
Propagated modref for push_without_duplicates/1089577
loads:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97369
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96229
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97027
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Another test case. Of the buffer overflow in the four functions in it, only a
subset is diagnosed. The subset depends on the form of the assignment in the
IL which in turn changes from target to target.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97350
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka ---
Aha, the code in question is:
# USE = nonlocal null { D.8330 D.22051 D.22054 D.22059 D.22060 } (nonlocal,
escaped, interposable)
# CLB = nonlocal null { D.8330 D.22051 D.22054 D.22059 D.22060 } (nonlocal,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97406
Bug ID: 97406
Summary: Truncated pointer-to-member type in concept
satisfaction error
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97407
Bug ID: 97407
Summary: Expanding alias template in concept satisfaction error
is undesirable
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97407
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97369
--- Comment #5 from Seager Du ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> That doesn't look like anything to do with GCC.
Yeap, Thank you for you help on the libstdc++.so issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97086
--- Comment #2 from m farazma ---
Wanted to point out the same happens when using "nearbyint":
```
#include
#include
int main(){
std::cout << nearbyintf(-0) << std::endl;
return 0;
}
```
expected: -0
actual: 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97404
Bug ID: 97404
Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] aarch64: Wrong code since
r9-3666-g74ca1c01d
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97350
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK, I was poking a bit about the problem and indeed the bootstrapped gnat with
-O3 and PGO ices, while gnat built normally does not.
We fail:
#2 0x019b7dcb in _Z13variable_sizeP9tree_node
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97406
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95310
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk by r11-3372-d6587211c02c4e2566c4e545c09757f3fbb7adab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97390
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Thanks for checking/confirming that.
Next try:
(In reply to afernandez from comment #0)
> 6475 | !$acc data present([...]) async(counter+1)
> |1
> Error: Unclassifiable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97086
--- Comment #3 from m farazma ---
Sorry the above example needs to be changed to this in order to reproduce the
bug:
```
#include
#include
int main(){
float a = -0.0;
std::cout << nearbyintf(a) << std::endl;
return 0;
}
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97390
--- Comment #4 from afernandez at odyhpc dot com ---
The code can be downloaded from GitHub:
git clone https://github.com/MPAS-Dev/MPAS-Model
cd MPAS-Model
git checkout atmosphere/v6.x-openacc
My experience with OpenACC is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95788
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97027
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97404
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97379
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:739526a19deaeac19c2429cc7567052834d3098e
commit r11-3852-g739526a19deaeac19c2429cc7567052834d3098e
Author: Aldy Hernandez
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96229
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1e8cd9628dcaedbb96bd014e0865e1415484e84b
commit r10-8887-g1e8cd9628dcaedbb96bd014e0865e1415484e84b
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95788
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5b814b6b618c8b3f0ff71717b4929a6fdf950714
commit r10--g5b814b6b618c8b3f0ff71717b4929a6fdf950714
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96879
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
lowpart_subreg will not handle CONST the way we'd need (it will just wrap the
CONST into a SUBREG), but the question is if such imm rtxes can make it through
there, because if the offset is non-constant or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97405
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97407
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Reduced:
template T&& declval;
template decltype(declval().begin()) begin_impl(R&);
template
using iter_type_impl = decltype(begin_impl(declval()));
template
struct unrelated
{
using erm =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97392
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Thanks, Martin!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97405
Bug ID: 97405
Summary: ICE in get_or_alloc_expr_for in code hoisting with SVE
intrinsics
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92422
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93083
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97408
Bug ID: 97408
Summary: Diagnose non-constant KIND argument to intrinsics
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97412
Bug ID: 97412
Summary: [concepts] ICE with requires requires and parameter
packs
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97413
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
support for (32bit)
> > > multilib.
> >
> > so I should build binutils with --disable-multilib?
>
> No, what I am saying is you don't have a new enough binutils.
I am using the latest binutils.
#define BFD_VERSION_DATE 20201013
/* The date below is automatically updated e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97409
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to fdlbxtqi from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > Sounds like the binutils does not have the needed support for (32bit)
> > multilib.
>
> so I should build binutils
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97409
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97409
--- Comment #2 from fdlbxtqi ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Sounds like the binutils does not have the needed support for (32bit)
> multilib.
so I should build binutils with --disable-multilib?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97410
Bug ID: 97410
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds with constant index from second
array element
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97390
--- Comment #6 from afernandez at odyhpc dot com ---
After reading some more documentation and the pdf that you mentioned, I concur
that the line doesn't follow OpenACC standards. I will keep looking into the
problem (maybe the PGI compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97413
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97406
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97350
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka ---
bug in SCC discovery. I am testing
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-modref.c b/gcc/ipa-modref.c
index 4f86b9ccea1..771a0a88f9a 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-modref.c
+++ b/gcc/ipa-modref.c
@@ -1603,6 +1603,11 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97407
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97409
Bug ID: 97409
Summary: riscv cross toolchain build fails
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97408
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-10-13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97394
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 49366
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49366=edit
[PATCH] analyzer: don't use in tests [PR97394]
Thanks for filing this bug. Does this patch fix the testsuite for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97411
Bug ID: 97411
Summary: [11 regression] bogus message from
gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c after r11-3840
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
='-O0 -ggdb3 ' CXXFLAGS='-O0 -ggdb3 ' --enable-valgrind-annotations
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 11.0.0 20201013 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97409
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kito at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97394
--- Comment #6 from Michael Morrell ---
Yes, thanks for the quick fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96759
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kito Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:78fbe731a8822e819c4ca0e6d6f777c7a2f36bad
commit r11-3860-g78fbe731a8822e819c4ca0e6d6f777c7a2f36bad
Author: Kito Cheng
Date: Wed Sep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97249
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu ---
I'm testing
---
diff --git a/gcc/simplify-rtx.c b/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
index 869f0d11b2e..9c397157f28 100644
--- a/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
+++ b/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
@@ -4170,6 +4170,33 @@ simplify_binary_operation_1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97387
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97396
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97395
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97392
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97391
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97383
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97396
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-10-13
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89067
--- Comment #4 from Antony Lewis ---
I agree it may be technically correct, but it is not helpful (esp. if your base
class is an empty hierarchy root class, so all derived classes in the program
would give this same error).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97396
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97269
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97395
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96879
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I was hoping the aarch64 maintainers would have a look, because the above patch
is just to show the problem, there are other issues lurking in that area as
written.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97195
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97389
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:56cb815ba22dd2ec00fee7a38f0862bc21d1c2a9
commit r11-3842-g56cb815ba22dd2ec00fee7a38f0862bc21d1c2a9
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97392
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8e0e9417ccda583a1bf05ff08e86fdffbec62b3e
commit r11-3845-g8e0e9417ccda583a1bf05ff08e86fdffbec62b3e
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97327
avieira at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||avieira at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97327
--- Comment #4 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
With -mcpu=cortex-m55+nomve should be equivalent to -march=armv8.1-m.main+dsp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97327
--- Comment #5 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Your other one:
-mcpu=cortex-m55+nomve -march=armv8.1-m.main+mve -mfloat-abi=softfp
This has cpu without mve and arch with mve.
Another fun caveat to look at is in:
-mcpu=cortex-m55
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97397
Ulrich Drepper changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96879
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
@Jakub: PING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97392
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97390
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97392
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97350
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
And it's still present after latest Honza's patches as of
g:ca4938fa8e0e72fd59307f1f058db800c1e4a8f3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97379
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez ---
There's a read of a freed block while accessing the default_slot in
calc_switch_ranges.
default_slot->intersect (def_range);
It seems the default_slot got swiped from under us, and the valgrind
dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97379
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 49361
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49361=edit
proposed patch in testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97398
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97387
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97387
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|target
--- Comment #6 from Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97387
--- Comment #7 from fdlbxtqi ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Trying 10, 17 -> 18:
>10: r88:QI=ltu(flags:CCC,0)
> REG_DEAD flags:CCC
>17: {flags:CCC=cmp(r88:QI-0x1,r88:QI);clobber scratch;}
> REG_DEAD r88:QI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97397
Bug ID: 97397
Summary: Unnecessary mov instruction
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97398
Bug ID: 97398
Summary: Enhancement request: Warning when multiply assigning
to same struct field
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97327
--- Comment #3 from Christophe Lyon ---
Well, why does the warning remove the extensions? (+) It seems to indicate
they are not taken into account, which is confusing: it doesn't really say why
there is a conflict.
Why do you think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97389
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97399
Bug ID: 97399
Summary: g++ 9.3 cannot compile SFINAE code with separated
declaration and definition, g++ 7.3 compiles
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97387
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97349
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Kyrylo Tkachov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b9c1ca3e2fc84b40dc2ab70d12064e3d0eb8abdd
commit r9-8992-gb9c1ca3e2fc84b40dc2ab70d12064e3d0eb8abdd
Author: Kyrylo Tkachov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97400
Bug ID: 97400
Summary: [10/11 Regression] SVE: wrong code since
r10-3906-g96eb7d7a64
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97401
Bug ID: 97401
Summary: static int has a default value?
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97349
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Kyrylo Tkachov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5d3052a4755173f447cfcffa361086562033c8be
commit r8-10582-g5d3052a4755173f447cfcffa361086562033c8be
Author: Kyrylo Tkachov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97349
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97352
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
So a simpler testcase is the following (but hinting at the possibly not generic
enough solution to split the load group):
double a[6], b[6];
void foo()
{
a[0] = b[0];
a[1] = b[1];
a[2] = b[2];
a[3]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97399
--- Comment #1 from Renlin Li ---
Created attachment 49363
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49363=edit
test case 2
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
