https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111337
--- Comment #13 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #6)
> I wonder whether SVE/GCN have those.
Just to answer this: yeah, SVE does have both vector and predicate
SEL (vcond_mask). So the fold is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111317
--- Comment #1 from Robin Dapp ---
I think the default cost model is not too bad for these simple cases. Our
emitted instructions match gimple pretty well.
The thing we don't model is vsetvl. We could ignore it under the assumption
that it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
--- Comment #25 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #24)
> Heh, nice hack. :) But I guess this shows that the type checking of
> internal functions isn't as strong it should be.
>
> IMO it's wrong to pass a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110348
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111050
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Right. The _M_valptr() function compiles to something like:
return (_Value*)((char*)this + offsetof(_Hash_node_value_base, _M_storage);
In GCC 10, the offsetof expression was non-zero, specifically it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111357
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f73d2d61a5926f42e9e5d771d23868787ef9d800
commit r14-3908-gf73d2d61a5926f42e9e5d771d23868787ef9d800
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111272
--- Comment #4 from Paul Keir ---
I believe P2448R2 would only allow the code, without the static_assert.
Explicitly calling `test()`, `Jam::Jam()` and then `Jam::ft()` here would mean
evaluating a non-constexpr function (i.e. `ft`). ft is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111384
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111389
Bug ID: 111389
Summary: ICE in check_loop_closed_ssa_def, at
tree-ssa-loop-manip.cc:647
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111285
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
-tune= --with-isa-spec=20191213 'CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET=-O2
-mcmodel=medany' 'CXXFLAGS_FOR_TARGET=-O2-mcmodel=medany'
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 14.0.0 20230912 (experimental) (g35f498d8dfc)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111388
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note variant can still hold neither ...
You might need to add a check for valueless_by_exception here.
But variant::index could be improved to say the only values that are valid is
[0,N],[-1]. and that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107887
Bug 107887 depends on bug 107881, which changed state.
Bug 107881 Summary: (a <= b) == (b >= a) should be optimized to (a == b)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107880
Bug 107880 depends on bug 107881, which changed state.
Bug 107881 Summary: (a <= b) == (b >= a) should be optimized to (a == b)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
--- Comment #29 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #27)
> (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #26)
> > But this is how technical debt builds up. We'd be making a change
> > that doesn't match the type system,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111383
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
-fwrapv also allows causes the correct code to happen.
The difference with/without -fwrapv is:
_7 = _6 + -1625040257;
if (_7 <= 6)
vs
if (_6 <= 1625040263)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107198
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111378
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Note I thought I saw another bug requesting the same thing but I could not
> find it.
PR 85234 is mostly requesting the opposite way though ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111378
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111327
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4289f6ceefe74ea46e792692448c06197ac20c86
commit r14-3902-g4289f6ceefe74ea46e792692448c06197ac20c86
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
--- Comment #28 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #27)
> (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #26)
> > But this is how technical debt builds up. We'd be making a change
> > that doesn't match the type system,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111383
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111392
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59256
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2021-12-13 00:00:00 |2023-9-12
--- Comment #15 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111327
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111340
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:724e9b12ce2b06cceeb59255a5eb0f31b0a7af65
commit r12-9874-g724e9b12ce2b06cceeb59255a5eb0f31b0a7af65
Author: Uros Bizjak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111389
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Summary|ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111271
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-09-12
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98596
Vineet Gupta changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111393
Bug ID: 111393
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault src/gcc/toplev.cc:314
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111388
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Adding:
```
if (ab.index()>=2)
__builtin_unreachable();
```
to operator->
Also fixes the issue.
C++23 would be:
[[assume(ab.index()<2)]];
(Except that does not optimize currently).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:895e476f64c308dfdbf49693d0b1166c0b7733de
commit r14-3881-g895e476f64c308dfdbf49693d0b1166c0b7733de
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111390
Bug ID: 111390
Summary: 'make check-compile' target is not useful
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111392
Bug ID: 111392
Summary: Implement omp::decl attribute support for C++
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107198
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ea5abbb263315e558c876b50c9371b90ddd5e028
commit r14-3907-gea5abbb263315e558c876b50c9371b90ddd5e028
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
--- Comment #24 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Heh, nice hack. :) But I guess this shows that the type checking of
internal functions isn't as strong it should be.
IMO it's wrong to pass a scalar else value to a vector operation.
Even
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111327
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:52f65d17c85fa513887a3bb31e3c3c329d9ace58
commit r14-3903-g52f65d17c85fa513887a3bb31e3c3c329d9ace58
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111327
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f1e87aee5b7023fb4f5791c6869db705e18c2705
commit r14-3901-gf1e87aee5b7023fb4f5791c6869db705e18c2705
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111384
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I thought I saw/reported a similar bug but I can't find it right now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
--- Comment #27 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #26)
> But this is how technical debt builds up. We'd be making a change
> that doesn't match the type system, and that we know to be wrong
> in principle. And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111383
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think iv-opts is changing:
(d - 1625015511) + (d - 1625015341)
into (2*d - N) which introduces an overflow ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111393
--- Comment #1 from AK ---
oot/d2fc9f48-c166-4a9e-9868-133a1db7af88/llvm-project/build# ninja clang
check-clang
[100/845] Building CXX object
tools/clang/lib/Serialization/CMakeFiles/obj.clangSerialization.dir/GlobalModuleIndex.cpp.o
FAILED:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111394
Bug ID: 111394
Summary: Warning about uninitialized memory that is actually
initialized
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111393
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110348
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> BTW, shall size() and data() be manifestly constant-evaluated?
> I think it doesn't satisfy any of the https://eel.is/c++draft/expr.const#19
> bullets (unlike
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111364
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111050
John Drouhard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||john at drouhard dot dev
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
--- Comment #26 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
But this is how technical debt builds up. We'd be making a change
that doesn't match the type system, and that we know to be wrong
in principle. And we'd be making it with no realistic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111375
Jeremy Bennett changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59256
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The std::format case looks like this:
namespace x
{
inline namespace v {
namespace detail {
template struct bar;
}
template
auto make(Arg);
template
class detail::bar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111368
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #0)
> The contrib/test_summary script
> should test the git branch that it's printing against the git branch that
> was actually tested to help guard against errors
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111337
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Another option would be to add another number to -falign-functions,
@itemx -falign-functions=@var{n}:@var{m}:@var{n2}:@var{m2}:@var{n3}
where 'n3' applies unconditionally and defaults to a target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111337
--- Comment #12 from Robin Dapp ---
Yes, as far as I know. I would also go ahead and merge the test suite patch
now as there is already a v2 fix posted. Even if it's not the correct one it
will be done soon so we should not let that block
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110935
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 5 Sep 2023, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110935
>
> --- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
> ---
> If we were going to do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111377
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||testsuite-fail
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111312
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I think the analyzer runs at the "correct" place as a regular IPA pass which
makes it possible for it to see the whole program (with -flto).
As with any of our late diagnostic passes there's trade-off
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111383
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111337
--- Comment #3 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> vect_patt_67.34_168 = VEC_COND_EXPR }>;
> vect_patt_68.35_169 = (vector([4,4]) int) vect_patt_67.34_168;
>
> ->
>
> vect_patt_68.35_169 = VEC_COND_EXPR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111337
--- Comment #11 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #10)
> I would be OK with the riscv implementation, then we don't need to touch
> isel. Maybe a future vector extension will also help us here so we could
> just switch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111327
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We might want to look into bind too:
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0826r0.html#3.-implementation-experience
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110996
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mikael Morin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b9cbd1a2c2f50d4e305938d97916011bd5839ce0
commit r14-3864-gb9cbd1a2c2f50d4e305938d97916011bd5839ce0
Author: Mikael Morin
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110812
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||malat at debian dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111386
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Andreas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111338
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6067dbdcf77df995129214248f062d9ce18b48d8
commit r14-3875-g6067dbdcf77df995129214248f062d9ce18b48d8
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111368
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. test_summary doesn't print that "[master r14-3825-g0d50fac]" string
itself, it just scrapes it from the logs, and the string in the logs comes
straight from the xgcc. xg++ etc. binaries.
I don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111276
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
I think the API expects to be guarded to only be called on stmts that require
rewriting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111285
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110348
corentinjabot at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||corentinjabot at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110348
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to corentinjabot from comment #9)
> During review in clang we felt that it diagnosing it it all cases
> would be preferable to our users, as otherwise errors only manifest when the
> static
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110348
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> Jason, do we have a way to test whether something is a core constant
> expression in the FE? Seems the https://eel.is/c++draft/expr.const#13
> checks are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111337
--- Comment #8 from Robin Dapp ---
Yes, I doubt we would get much below 4 instructions with riscv specifics.
A quick grep yesterday didn't reveal any aarch64 or gcn patterns for those (as
long as they are not hidden behind some pattern
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111375
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy Bennett ---
(In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #1)
> I can't reproduce the ICE in your testcase with same command.
>
> ~/work/toolchain/develop/build/dev-rv64gcv_zfh-lp64d-medany-linux-spike/
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111378
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111386
Mathieu Malaterre changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111306
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111337
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111337
>
> --- Comment #3 from JuzheZhong ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111370
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111381
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947
--- Comment #1 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111387
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111337
--- Comment #9 from JuzheZhong ---
So, should we support this pattern in RISC-V backend ?
Or adjust gimple-isel to generate these 4 STMTs naturally?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110996
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111371
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104024
--- Comment #7 from Kewen Lin ---
*** Bug 111371 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111385
Bug ID: 111385
Summary: Remove Python2 support from pretty printers
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111385
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109951
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111337
--- Comment #10 from Robin Dapp ---
I would be OK with the riscv implementation, then we don't need to touch isel.
Maybe a future vector extension will also help us here so we could just switch
the implementation then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110348
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
BTW, shall size() and data() be manifestly constant-evaluated?
I think it doesn't satisfy any of the https://eel.is/c++draft/expr.const#19
bullets (unlike first static_assert argument).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111375
--- Comment #3 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to Jeremy Bennett from comment #2)
> (In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #1)
> > I can't reproduce the ICE in your testcase with same command.
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106050
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109951
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d1bff1ba4d470f6723be83c0e3c4d5083e51877a
commit r14-3869-gd1bff1ba4d470f6723be83c0e3c4d5083e51877a
Author: Thomas Schwinge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109951
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fb5d27be272b71fb9026224535fc73f125ce3be7
commit r14-3870-gfb5d27be272b71fb9026224535fc73f125ce3be7
Author: Thomas Schwinge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111386
Bug ID: 111386
Summary: flto=auto => lto1: fatal error: target specific
builtin not available
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111267
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Codegen regression from |[14 Regression] Codegen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111280
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111280
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
1 - 100 of 172 matches
Mail list logo
