https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.0
Summary|[9/10/11/12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105348
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105358
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105364
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105364
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105366
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105365
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105372
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105367
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105371
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
*** Bug 105372 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105219
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org|avieira at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105368
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I can't reproduce but I also don't see how the code could crash there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105363
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105231
--- Comment #30 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4f77738c3b44cb6b7bfe2a7ef823a5d9d75c0e79
commit r12-8239-g4f77738c3b44cb6b7bfe2a7ef823a5d9d75c0e79
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b6e22db8564827c82108e0b7fa1a84675379c12b
commit r12-8240-gb6e22db8564827c82108e0b7fa1a84675379c12b
Author: Steve Kargl
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105231
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105206
Bug 105206 depends on bug 89125, which changed state.
Bug 89125 Summary: Misoptimization of converting sin(x) and cos(x) into
sincos(x,,)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105369
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The preprocessor can't tell if an expression has side effects. I have no idea
how easy it would be (or if it's even possible) for the front end to tell that
an expression was duplicated from a single
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105304
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c83b9c54d9dee2dce5d8268472a745b013d166cc
commit r12-8257-gc83b9c54d9dee2dce5d8268472a745b013d166cc
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105304
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] ICE |[10/11 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102629
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105289
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:288e4c64f6b4806358aabc9b99b2fba72bf04bf6
commit r12-8256-g288e4c64f6b4806358aabc9b99b2fba72bf04bf6
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86193
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:288e4c64f6b4806358aabc9b99b2fba72bf04bf6
commit r12-8256-g288e4c64f6b4806358aabc9b99b2fba72bf04bf6
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104624
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:65735d21ac410463126114c572999682f987972c
commit r12-8258-g65735d21ac410463126114c572999682f987972c
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104624
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105338
--- Comment #13 from denis.campredon at gmail dot com ---
Thanks a lots.
I have a question though: foo and bar are similar, foo produces a branchless
code whereas bar uses a jump.
int foo(int i) {
return !i ? 0 : -2;
}
int bar(int i) {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100810
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ab91c10792cd3a1ba1495aa30a34ca17b043bafb
commit r12-8241-gab91c10792cd3a1ba1495aa30a34ca17b043bafb
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98760
Boris Kolpackov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 98760, which changed state.
Bug 98760 Summary: [modules] ICE in add_module_decl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98760
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105368
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Might be easier to reproduce using ubsan too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105368
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f0e170f72f8bfaa2a64e1d09ebdfd48f917420f1
commit r12-8242-gf0e170f72f8bfaa2a64e1d09ebdfd48f917420f1
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105373
--- Comment #1 from Avi Kivity ---
I randomly looked at 023t.ssa (mainly because I recognized the acronym).
_45 = frame_ptr_182(D)->__closure;
_46 = _45->__this;
frame_ptr_182(D)->D.2159984_4_7 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105358
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or is the problem mainly in code like
#define INLINE_ORDERED_TEAM_IDS_OFF \
((offsetof (struct gomp_work_share, inline_ordered_team_ids) \
+ __alignof__ (long long) - 1) & ~(__alignof__ (long
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103662
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105368
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-04-25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105368
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|12.0|
Summary|[10/11/12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105368
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105358
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Or is the problem mainly in code like
> #define INLINE_ORDERED_TEAM_IDS_OFF \
> ((offsetof (struct gomp_work_share, inline_ordered_team_ids) \
> +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105373
--- Comment #2 from Avi Kivity ---
I see it in 006t.gimple too:
try
{
_50 = frame_ptr->__closure;
_51 = _50->__this;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105358
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 52865
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52865=edit
gcc12-pr105358.patch
So what about this? All the newly added comparisons should fold into true or
false at compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104077
Bug 104077 depends on bug 104076, which changed state.
Bug 104076 Summary: bogus -Wdangling-pointer on a conditional
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104076
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104076
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105368
--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka ---
I think the issue might be in the:
> 1463
> 1464 /* Ignore the reciprocal when calculating the cost. */
> 1465 val = (n < 0) ? -n : n;
expression, for the case n == LONG_MIN, but I am not a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104662
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-04-25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105373
Bug ID: 105373
Summary: miscompile involving lambda coroutines and an object
bitwise copied instead of via the copy constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.1
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102178
--- Comment #32 from Richard Biener ---
So the bad "head" can be fixed via
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
index c74edd1aaef..8f9f26e0a82 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
@@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105368
--- Comment #7 from Zdenek Sojka ---
I can confirm the patch fixes the testcase for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100810
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105368
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(gdb) disas
Dump of assembler code for function powi_cost(long):
0x01538160 <+0>: push %r14
0x01538162 <+2>: mov$0x20,%ecx
0x01538167 <+7>: push
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104492
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
So IL wise the issue is that we go from
:
candidates(address-taken)[0].m_size = 2;
candidates(address-taken)[0].m_data = "so";
_1 = std::end ((address-taken));
_2 = std::begin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105367
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Created attachment 52864 [details]
> gcc12-pr105367-2.patch
>
> Variant patch (smaller, just i386 backend). Advantage of the first one is
> that
> we can use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105358
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Still trying to understand where the problem is.
In work.c (gomp_init_work_share), there are 3 cases, one is ordered == 0,
another one ordered == 1, another one bigger numbers. The first one doesn't
care,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105358
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Does
> --- libgomp/libgomp.h.jj 2022-01-11 23:11:23.890269075 +0100
> +++ libgomp/libgomp.h 2022-04-25 11:20:09.744103064 +0200
> @@ -717,6 +717,13 @@ struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103662
--- Comment #22 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mikael Morin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6cc26f3037a18b9a958b4ac2a1363149a7fccd39
commit r12-8243-g6cc26f3037a18b9a958b4ac2a1363149a7fccd39
Author: Mikael Morin
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105358
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Still trying to understand where the problem is.
> In work.c (gomp_init_work_share), there are 3 cases, one is ordered == 0,
> another one ordered == 1, another
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105381
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105287
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks. FWIW I've filed PR 105382 to track the various other issues I'm seeing
with -fanalyzer with coroutines (though given that we don't properly support
C++ yet, that's relatively low priority for me).
bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r12-8242-20220425114659-gf0e170f72f8-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.1 20220425 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105287
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #5)
> Thanks. FWIW I've filed PR 105382 to track the various other issues I'm
> seeing with -fanalyzer with coroutines (though given that we don't properly
> support
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105373
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
I'm guessing that a reproducer is going to be hard to arrange (from the
"complex piece of code") even though the failing point is well-defined?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105384
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you try the one that is downloaded via contrib/download_pre*.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105385
Bug ID: 105385
Summary: ICE: Aborted (in do_mpfr_arg2): GNU MP: Cannot
allocate memory (size=3458764513820540832) with
__builtin_jn{,f,l}
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105384
--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Can you try the one that is downloaded via contrib/download_pre*.
The you for the comment. The versions I am using are:
[ebuild R] dev-libs/gmp-6.2.1-r2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105377
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105380
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-04-25
Summary|[PDT] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105383
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104336
Mattias Ellert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mattias.ellert at physics dot
uu.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105381
Bug ID: 105381
Summary: [12 Regression] Memory-hog since r12-8230
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105382
Bug ID: 105382
Summary: Support for coroutines in -fanalyzer
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: analyzer
0220425114659-gf0e170f72f8-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.1 20220425 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105384
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
What version of gmp, mpfr are you using?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104336
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105379
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105381
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-04-25
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105384
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105385
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103993
andre at kostur dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andre at kostur dot net
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104717
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b2202431910e30d8505c94d1cb9341cac7080d10
commit r12-8252-gb2202431910e30d8505c94d1cb9341cac7080d10
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105379
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 52876
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52876=edit
Draft patch
This shows no testsuite regression.
But there is something that I want to check before submitting it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105381
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin ---
Draft patch.
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc
index e4b6270ccf8..e0070aa080d 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc
@@ -3698,7 +3698,8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105381
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105362
--- Comment #2 from Pavel M ---
I do believe that evaluation of constant expressions in conditional inclusion
is done according to the rules of constant expressions ("except that ...", see
C11, 6.10.1/1). Hence, I expect the same diagnostics in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52871|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105358
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Created attachment 52865 [details]
> gcc12-pr105358.patch
>
> So what about this? All the newly added comparisons should fold into true
> or false at compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105329
Mattias Ellert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mattias.ellert at physics dot
uu.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105314
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105379
Bug ID: 105379
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in gfc_compare_array_spec(): Array
spec clobbered
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105377
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
But we don['t want to use gnu++17 because we want the compiler to be built
using portable ISO C++17. An unrecognized attribute is a portable ISO C++17
construct, it just doesn't do anything (except maybe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105375
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to raldone01 from comment #5)
> Thank you for your reply.
> What does that mean?
As it says at the link in comment 4, "The following behavior-changing defect
reports were applied retroactively
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105348
--- Comment #3 from Thiago Macieira ---
I understand. I'm just trying to avoid having to add code for a corner-case.
People don't usually parse empty buffers, so it's usually fine to allow it to
proceed and discover an EOF condition.
Anyway,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105365
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105366
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105380
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105380
Bug ID: 105380
Summary: ICE in gfc_conv_array_initializer, at
fortran/trans-array.cc:6317
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105375
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.4
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
--- Comment #19 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 07:28:50AM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
>
> Richard Biener changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105358
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That change was completely intentional, to fix Solaris/x86 etc.
If there is not an efficient aligned alloc, we don't want struct
gomp_work_share to require 64-byte alignment (because normal allocator can't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105358
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Does
--- libgomp/libgomp.h.jj2022-01-11 23:11:23.890269075 +0100
+++ libgomp/libgomp.h 2022-04-25 11:20:09.744103064 +0200
@@ -717,6 +717,13 @@ struct gomp_team
/* This barrier is used for most
1 - 100 of 166 matches
Mail list logo
