https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69234
--- Comment #1 from Abe ---
The file "incremental-marking.o" is compiled from the source code at "/src/heap/incremental-marking.cc".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69234
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #5)
> BTW, Honza promised to implement a -fnull-this-pointer switch for this issue,
> because Firefox, Kdevelop, QT5, etc. are also affected.
Sounds like so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69234
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #12)
> They are actually aware of the issue for over a year:
>
> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/v8/issues/detail?id=3782
That is sad and just means they don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69234
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69234
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Abe from comment #9)
> Created attachment 37309 [details]
> preprocessed part of V8
>
> I will attach a compressed form of the relevant file --
> "incremental-marking.cc" from V8, preprocessed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69225
--- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Jan 12 00:30:30 2016
New Revision: 232249
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232249=gcc=rev
Log:
Set FLT_EVAL_METHOD to 2 only if 387 FPU is used
When 387 FPU isn't used,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69225
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68637
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Indeed, the parse appears to be correct (although there are various
existing cases where an attribute gets automatically moved to apply to a
type rather than to the original declaration to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69234
--- Comment #12 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> (In reply to Abe from comment #9)
> > Created attachment 37309 [details]
> > preprocessed part of V8
> >
> > I will attach a compressed form of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69234
Bug ID: 69234
Summary: recent GCC trunk compilers miscompile the V8
JavaScript interpreter/JITC
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69234
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69219
--- Comment #2 from yuta tomino ---
> Yes, remove the convention Intrinsic, it doesn't make any sense here or add
> pragma Inline_Always on the nested subprogram as indicated.
I agree with your sense. The local subprograms would be optimized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69225
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016, kyukhin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> BTW, for -std=gnu99 we have EXCESS_PRECISION_FAST engaged.
> This differs from -std=c99
>
> If this correct behavior? I see no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69234
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
This sounds like maybe a bug in the V8 sources. Can you try
-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks ?
Also can you provide the preprocessed source which is being miscompiled?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69234
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
BTW, Honza promised to implement a -fnull-this-pointer switch for this issue,
because Firefox, Kdevelop, QT5, etc. are also affected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69232
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69234
--- Comment #9 from Abe ---
Created attachment 37309
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37309=edit
preprocessed part of V8
I will attach a compressed form of the relevant file --
"incremental-marking.cc" from V8, preprocessed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68853
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 69234 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69194
--- Comment #2 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Tue Jan 12 00:40:54 2016
New Revision: 232251
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232251=gcc=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-01-12 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69110
--- Comment #13 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In 4.6, parloops failed to parallelize because in find_data_references_in_stmt
we had:
...
/* FIXME -- data dependence analysis does not work correctly for objects
with invariant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23087
--- Comment #16 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Well, an additional
note: 'char' and 'signed char' are different types
(or similar in the unsigned case) could be added in the case where the
types have the same representation, one is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69234
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In that case, I guess the questions are:
1) does -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks cure the crash?
2) do any of the functions/methods defined in the problematic file have
nonnull attribute?
3) can you try to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69234
Abe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69219
yuta tomino changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23087
--- Comment #17 from Keith Thompson ---
I just took a quick look at the discussion on the gcc-patches mailing
list.
It's true that the standard doesn't classify plain "char" either as a
signed integer type or as an unsigned integer type.
But I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68853
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abe_skolnik at yahoo dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69234
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
At least the issue should be mentioned either in changes.html or
porting_to.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69214
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69108
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69213
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
The SSA _1 doesn't have a def stmt ...
int main() ()
{
bool a_lsm.9;
int a_lsm.8;
bool b_lsm.7;
int b_lsm.6;
unsigned int _1;
unsigned int _3;
int _7;
int a.0_9;
:
a.0_9 = a;
if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69207
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Seems there is a mismatch in between fold_convertible_p and
> verify_gimple_assign_unary (and also the gimplifier).
> E.g. for this special case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69196
--- Comment #4 from Sebastian Huber ---
I did a very rough check to see which code is faster on the PSIM/GDB simulator
using the following input data:
void printk(const char *fmt, ...)
{
va_list ap;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69222
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69209
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Unless I'm misreading ipa-split.c, it seems it is unprepared to see addressable
retvals with gimple reg type, but where due to the addressability retval is not
is_gimple_val. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67425
--- Comment #5 from Yury Gribov ---
Martin, is this better now? Could you close the bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69108
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Mon Jan 11 09:19:33 2016
New Revision: 232211
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232211=gcc=rev
Log:
Handle case that outer phi res is not used in a phi in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69217
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66616
--- Comment #21 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Jan 11 10:03:44 2016
New Revision: 232214
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232214=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR ipa/66616] Copy can_change_signature flag to artificial thunks
2016-01-11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69123
--- Comment #16 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Mon Jan 11 10:40:12 2016
New Revision: 232217
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232217=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR69123] make dataflow_set_different details more verbose
for gcc/ChangeLog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69123
--- Comment #17 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Mon Jan 11 10:40:33 2016
New Revision: 232218
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232218=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR69123] fix handling of MEMs in VTA to avoid dataflow oscillation
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67425
--- Comment #4 from ygribov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ygribov
Date: Mon Jan 11 09:11:11 2016
New Revision: 232210
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232210=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport fix docs for -frandom-seed.
2016-01-11 Yury Gribov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69058
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68981
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68979
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69058
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
--- Comment #2 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It's my change, I will look into it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69010
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69225
Bug ID: 69225
Summary: gcc uses double precision instead of single float with
-m32 -std=c99 -msoft-float
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69147
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69216
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69109
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69190
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
It is indeed. Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69058
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Mon Jan 11 08:55:16 2016
New Revision: 232208
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232208=gcc=rev
Log:
Don't parallelize loops if libgomp not supported
2016-01-11 Tom de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69187
--- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, that should do.
/* PR target/69187 */
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-require-effective-target arm_neon } */
/* { dg-options "-O0" } */
/* { dg-add-options arm_neon } */
Please send
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69109
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Mon Jan 11 09:38:28 2016
New Revision: 232212
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232212=gcc=rev
Log:
Don't allow latch with phi in try_transform_to_exit_first_loop_alt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69209
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69199
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
OTOH it doesn't really matter to the middle-end.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66616
--- Comment #20 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Jan 11 09:59:48 2016
New Revision: 232213
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232213=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR 66616] Check for thunks when adding extra constants to clones
2016-01-11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59810
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65770
--- Comment #2 from James Greenhalgh ---
r222582 for reference.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69155
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > I think we have a dup/related bug where we run into the issue that
> > tree-complex.c
> > wrecks SSA form
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69225
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |middle-end
--- Comment #1 from Uroš
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69220
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69219
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69187
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69044
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Jan 11 10:09:17 2016
New Revision: 232215
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232215=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR ipa/69044] Do not clone for param removal when not possible
2016-01-11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69211
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67425
--- Comment #3 from ygribov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ygribov
Date: Mon Jan 11 09:06:14 2016
New Revision: 232209
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232209=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix docs for -frandom-seed.
2016-01-11 Yury Gribov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69213
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 69212 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69212
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69224
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69222
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65770
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68986
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69044
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69058
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #5)
> Isn't it a gccgo front end (spec) bug, that it doesn't bring in GOMP stuff
> (builtins, link against libgomp) under the presence of
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69123
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69147
--- Comment #2 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Dominique, could you please run ASan tests with
ASAN_OPTIONS=debug=1:verbosity=2? This might be helpful for further debugging.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69217
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69010
--- Comment #1 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Mon Jan 11 10:27:17 2016
New Revision: 232216
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232216=gcc=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/69010
* expr.c (expand_expr_real_1): For
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69161
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69214
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68356
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin1* |x86_64-apple-darwin1*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69235
Bug ID: 69235
Summary: [concepts] Spurious ambiguous template instantiation
error on oppositely constrained class template
specializations
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69219
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68356
--- Comment #11 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Tue Jan 12 02:06:20 2016
New Revision: 232256
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232256=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/68356
* gcc.dg/torture/pr68264.c:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69007
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
I just tried the experiment with swapping the two patterns, and it does indeed
solve the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69158
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69219
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69230
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Summary|valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69233
Bug ID: 69233
Summary: fixtfti returns bad value for TI overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48344
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69233
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
It is unspecified what the value of an overflow conversion is. So 1 is correct
so is -1 and/or INT_MAX.
I don't think this is a bug.
The test code which depends on these values is broken and should not be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69233
--- Comment #2 from Steven Munroe ---
Well the language spec may not specify. But I can ask the platform to be
consistent with itself. For PowerISA I would expect long double -> __int128 to
be consistent with double -> long, which saturates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69131
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jan 11 20:53:07 2016
New Revision: 232243
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232243=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/69131
* method.c (walk_field_subobs): Add dtor_from_ctor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69230
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69069
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Mon Jan 11 12:08:38 2016
New Revision: 232221
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232221=gcc=rev
Log:
Add missing phi args in create_parallel_loop
2016-01-11 Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69053
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69227
--- Comment #1 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Relevant thread on gcc-patches:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg00586.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64782
Bug 64782 depends on bug 64784, which changed state.
Bug 64784 Summary: -march=native should be supported
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64784
What|Removed |Added
1 - 100 of 197 matches
Mail list logo