https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103904
--- Comment #6 from Hannes Hauswedell ---
Yes, I understand that, and I know that it is your role to uphold these rules
(which I believe make a lot of sense in general) and that you have other
interests to consider beyond mine :)
I would still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103900
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103905
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
The referred patch adds:
+;; Pack/unpack vector modes
+(define_mode_attr mmxpackmode
+ [(V4HI "V8QI") (V2SI "V4HI")])
+
+(define_expand "vec_pack_trunc_"
+ [(match_operand: 0 "register_operand")
+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99612
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5a431b60d1f221992e5e9f7a5c032df3b5fa35a5
commit r12-6216-g5a431b60d1f221992e5e9f7a5c032df3b5fa35a5
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #87 from Martin Liška ---
Self-contained test-case:
$ cat options-save2.ii
char flags[16];
int one = 1, two = 2;
void
__attribute__ ((noipa))
save() {
flags[0] = one;
flags[1] = one;
flags[2] = one;
flags[3] = one;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103903
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89748
Siddhesh Poyarekar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||siddhesh at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103905
Bug ID: 103905
Summary: [12 Regression] Miscompiled i386-expand.c with
-march=bdver1 and -O3 since r12-1789-g836328b2c99f5b8d
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103905
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70090
Siddhesh Poyarekar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |siddhesh at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77608
Siddhesh Poyarekar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||siddhesh at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103905
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52119|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103907
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I just did:
make check-g++ RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=*array*.C --target_board=unix/-m32" and
got:
=== g++ tests ===
Schedule of variations:
unix/-m32
Running target unix/-m32
Using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103900
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:708b87dcb6e48cb48d170a4b3625088995377a5c
commit r12-6215-g708b87dcb6e48cb48d170a4b3625088995377a5c
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103861
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:708b87dcb6e48cb48d170a4b3625088995377a5c
commit r12-6215-g708b87dcb6e48cb48d170a4b3625088995377a5c
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101622
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94716
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjeltsch at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103906
Bug ID: 103906
Summary: Illegal program not detected, ambiguous conversion
operator
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103907
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103907
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103904
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The issue is whether somebody's code breaks when upgrading from GCC 11.2 to
11.3, or when upgrading from 11.x to 12.x, and the documented policy says the
former should be avoided.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103852
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88492
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103885
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103886
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Sat, 1 Jan 2022, jb at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs wrote:
> I'm not super-familiar with glibc, but it seems that this changes the default
> (in ./bits/timesize.h) to 64 for targets not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103372
Bug 103372 depends on bug 99612, which changed state.
Bug 99612 Summary: Remove "#pragma GCC system_header" from atomic file to warn
on incorrect memory order
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99612
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99612
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #85 from Martin Liška ---
Ok, so the options-save.c is really miscompiled. I reduced that down to:
$ cat options-save2.ii
struct cl_optimization {
/* All have value 0. */
char x_flag_keep_gc_roots_live;
char
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103901
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103372
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.2.0, 4.9.4,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103848
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> > or - 1 + !__x._M_node
>
> Isn't that undefined for (x - y - 1 + !x) if x and y are both null?
> We get (T*)0 - 1 + 1 which overflows twice.
You're right,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103783
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #88 from Martin Liška ---
And the miscompiled file is i386-expand.o.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103906
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-04
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101421
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103848
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> > Other options perhaps could be - (__x._M_node ? 1 : 0)
>
> That produces worse code (with a jump) at -O1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #86 from Martin Liška ---
Optimized dump is equal:
void cl_optimization_save ()
{
vector(8) short int vect__2.20;
vector(16) char vect__2.19;
int val0.0_1;
int val1.15_3;
vector(4) int _22;
vector(4) int _25;
[local
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103901
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103905
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Created attachment 52120 [details]
> Isolated test-case
>
> Isolated test-case where only the miscompiled function
> ix86_expand_vec_extract_even_odd uses -O3.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103903
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103901
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-04
Ever confirmed|0
for excess errors)
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes2805
# of unexpected failures5
# of expected failures 60
# of unresolved testcases 1
# of unsupported tests 146
/build/gcc-master/gcc/xg++ version 12.0.0 20220104 (experime
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103905
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 52123
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52123=edit
Patch that disables XOP permute with partial vectors
Please try this patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58670
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103905
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
>From what I can see, ifcvt dump is the same between r12-1788 and r12-1789, vect
has quite a few changes in that function, but the function is fairly simple in
ifcvt, because almost nothing is inlined into
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92943
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103908
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The attached testcase is:
int a, b;
void foo(void)
{
if (a) {
b = 1;
asm goto ("call 0x0\n\t" : : : : next1);
next1:;
} else {
b = 1;
asm goto ("call 0x1\n\t" : : : : next2);
next2:;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103909
Bug ID: 103909
Summary: co_yield of aggregate-initialized temporaries leads to
segmentation faults.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77667
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #3)
> The following patch seems to work:
... and regtests ok.
It is not really pretty, though, and does not help with apparently related PRs,
such as PR50410.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103905
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
@Jakub: It looks the problem is in expand_vec_perm_pshufb, where permutation
vector is recalculated for partial vectors:
if (vmode == V4QImode
|| vmode == V8QImode)
{
rtx m128 = GEN_INT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103908
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Seems to have been fixed by r258645
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98782
--- Comment #34 from pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to pthaugen from comment #33)
>
> I tried the patch on a Power9 system. Execution time went from 371 seconds
> to 291.
Which I should have included is in line, or even slightly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89868
--- Comment #9 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> Not a bug as mentioned, the core file just becomes too big for the limits
> (either hard or soft limits).
$ ulimit -c
unlimited
/dev/sda5 709G 479G 195G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90039
--- Comment #1 from Jonny Grant ---
Hello. Could someone confirm please?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103908
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89868
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #9)
> /dev/sda5 709G 479G 195G 72% /
>
> Would the core file be larger than 195 Gigabytes ?
Yes, certainly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103835
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Bogus sprintf warnings |bogus sprintf warnings due
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103911
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84699
jim x changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xmh970252187 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103912
Bug ID: 103912
Summary: ICE in a consteval function in cp_gimplify_expr, at
cp/cp-gimplify.c:557
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #26 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0fc60c183358be2f2003b94226ab49e21c585b13
commit r12-6219-g0fc60c183358be2f2003b94226ab49e21c585b13
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Tue Jan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85741
Bug 85741 depends on bug 92943, which changed state.
Bug 92943 Summary: missing -Wformat-overflow with an allocated buffer with
non-constant size in known range
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92943
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103908
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103908
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Summary|gcc 7.5.0 (and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98782
--- Comment #33 from pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #32)
> Created attachment 52102 [details]
> Alternative patch
>
> This patch is a squash of several ira tweaks that together recover the
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103910
--- Comment #2 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Created attachment 52124
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52124=edit
archiveBuilder.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103910
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-04
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103858
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89868
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The shadow maps are 1/8 of the address space, so I think that is 16TB.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103258
--- Comment #5 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The previous hacky patch had some testsuite regressions. I've posted a less
hacky one that doesn't trigger new failures here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-January/587632.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77667
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
build/__td__ CFLAGS='-O1 -ggdb3'
CXXFLAGS='-O1 -ggdb3' LDFLAGS='-O1 -ggdb3'
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20220104 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103911
Bug ID: 103911
Summary: std::from_chars shouldn't call isdigit
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103912
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-05
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103908
Bug ID: 103908
Summary: gcc 7.5.0 (and earlier) miscompile asm goto in O1 on
x86-64
Product: gcc
Version: 7.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103910
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
This should fix the issue:
apinski@xeond:~/src/upstream-gcc/gcc/gcc/config/i386$ git diff i386.h
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.h b/gcc/config/i386/i386.h
index f027608eefa..3ac0f698ae2 100644
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103902
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-04
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103848
--- Comment #8 from Stefan Brüns ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> This is not a bug.
>
> Firstly, there's no testcase provided (as https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs says is
> needed). Here's the missing testcase:
>
> #include
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95424
Zhao Wei Liew changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52098|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103905
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103903
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
If you fix the loop to do
for (i=0;i<10;i++)
{
dest[i].r/=src[i].g;
dest[i].g/=src[i].g;
dest[i].b/=src[i].b;
}
it's vectorized just fine (with larger than
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101185
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103913
Bug ID: 103913
Summary: Several variables declared in one declarator have
distinct types
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103912
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103905
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103662
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103662
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|TBAA problem in Fortran FE |[12 Regression] TBAA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103665
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Maybe we can simply use
__builtin_trap[_mem] ([(union tree_node *)0B].base.code);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103900
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Looks fixed, does not ICE for me with:
GNU C17 (GCC) version 12.0.0 20220104 (experimental) [master
r12-6200-g62c8b21d48a] (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103666
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103672
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103900
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2)
> Looks fixed, does not ICE for me with:
>
> GNU C17 (GCC) version 12.0.0 20220104 (experimental) [master
> r12-6200-g62c8b21d48a] (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103900
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2)
> Looks fixed, does not ICE for me with:
Maybe the fix for PR 103895 fixed this one also.
gcc version 12.0.0 20220104 (experimental) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-c' '-O' '-fno-tree-dce' '-fno-tree-dse' '-save-temps'
'-v' '-mtune=generic' '-march=x86-64'
/home/marxin/bin/gcc/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/12.0.0/cc1 -E -quiet -v
pr103900.c -mtune=generic -march=x86-64 -fno-tree-dce -fno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103675
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103680
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
And for CFG cleanup there's no profile updating done when passes leave CFG
update to it by simplifying conditions to if (0) or if (1). One could argue
that
"late" simplifications simply make the guessed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103686
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
-m[no-]fold-gimple is also a very badly named user option since it suggests
that 'fold' and 'gimple' are terms known to programmers. I'm just guessing
it was added to avoid "inlining" intrinsics as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103900
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> No, it still crashes with the current master (g:fbb592407c9):
Ah, the compiler is blindly trying to generate V2QI XOR due to missing
one_cmplv2qi2 pattern. I have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103900
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ubizjak at gmail dot com
1 - 100 of 185 matches
Mail list logo
