https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84776
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84776
Bug ID: 84776
Summary: Indefinite compile time w/ var-tracking
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: compile-time-hog
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84610
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84642
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84758
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84775
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84682
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Ol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84775
Bug ID: 84775
Summary: ICE on valid code at -O3: in
check_loop_closed_ssa_def, at
tree-ssa-loop-manip.c:709
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84550
--- Comment #15 from Kevin Buettner ---
I've been focusing my attention on dwarf2read.c (in GDB). I have a patch which
fixes this problem, but which introduces a bunch of test suite regressions.
(So it's not a very good patch.) I'll be away on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84774
Bug ID: 84774
Summary: [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wrestrict
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41647
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41660
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26475
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29997
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32340
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84773
Bug ID: 84773
Summary: [7/8 Regression] Cross-compilers do not use
aligned_alloc or _aligned_malloc for aligned-new
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12955
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84526
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83662
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78565
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
i.e. I think this is a dup of PR libstdc++/79190
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78565
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84770
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The ICE is due the assert below failing:
gcc_assert (strip_typedefs_expr (arg, NULL) == arg);
arg is
arg:0
constant
arg:0
cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84769
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.4
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84769
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Mar 9 01:10:02 2018
New Revision: 258376
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258376&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/84769 qualify std::get and std::get_if to avoid ADL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84770
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84767
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
At the point the "Local declaration from a different function" error is issued
in verify_expr(t) where t is PARAM_DECL for the argument to A's ctor, context
is: while cfun->decl is .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82859
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84767
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84772
Bug ID: 84772
Summary: powerpc-spe: Spurious "is used uninitialized" warning,
or possibly incorrect codegen for va_arg(long double)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53296
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84521
--- Comment #23 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Where exactly is this documented? I can't find no references to
> __builtin_setjmp or __builtin_longjmp in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-7.3.0/gcc.pdf or
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint.pdf.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84769
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84768
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
oldelt is
value
>
It has been created in:
/* Add it to the list. */
if (parameter != error_mark_node)
parameter_list = process_template_parm (parameter_list,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84521
--- Comment #22 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #21)
> > You can use __builtin_setjmp and __builtin_longjmp in the same function,
> > only if they use a different buffer. Otherwise it is invalid.
>
> Yes, that's invalid.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68567
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84771
Bug ID: 84771
Summary: missing -Wrestrict passing the same address to
restrict-qualified arguments of a user-defined
function
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84770
Bug ID: 84770
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE with parameter pack involving
typedef
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84768
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84769
Bug ID: 84769
Summary: variant::get(): unscoped call to get
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84456
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84456
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 8 21:50:37 2018
New Revision: 258371
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258371&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/84456
* dwarf2out.c (dw_loc_list): If list && loc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84768
Bug ID: 84768
Summary: ICE with failed class template argument deduction
because of invalid template parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Key
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84114
--- Comment #9 from Steve Ellcey ---
> Can you let me know if my workaround helped? If useful I could backport it
> to GCC7 as well.
Yes, the patch helped. I ran spec 2017 fp rate and saw a small improvement
(0.7%). Most of the speed up was i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80598
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80598
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 8 21:18:50 2018
New Revision: 258370
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258370&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/80598
* call.c (build_over_call): In templates set
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70409
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gerhard.steinmetz.fortran@t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68441
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70409
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harper at msor dot vuw.ac.nz
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61627
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84767
Bug ID: 84767
Summary: [6/7/8 Regression] ICE with pointer to VLA
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84742
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84742
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 8 20:55:03 2018
New Revision: 258369
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258369&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR inline-asm/84742
* recog.c (asm_operand_ok): Return 0 i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84763
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
Ugh, I overlooked the special case in ix86_compute_frame_layout when there is a
call to __builtin_frame_address in the code...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61627
--- Comment #5 from Harald Anlauf ---
This one appears to have been solved along with the fix
for pr64124/pr70409.
Close as duplicate?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68441
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 07:39:14PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68441
>
> --- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > I believe the patch I just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84766
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84766
Bug ID: 84766
Summary: __verbose_terminate_handler mistakes parallel
unhandled exceptions for recursive std::terminate()
calls
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84751
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Can't reproduce when using gcc version 4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-16) (GCC)
as system compiler (gcc110).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84751
--- Comment #5 from Will Schmidt ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> (In reply to Will Schmidt from comment #3)
> > $ /home/willschm/gcc/trunk.svn/configure --with-cpu=power7
> > --with-long-double-128 --prefix=/home/willschm/gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68441
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I believe the patch I just committed actually
> fixes this issue.
Confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84751
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Will Schmidt from comment #3)
> $ /home/willschm/gcc/trunk.svn/configure --with-cpu=power7
> --with-long-double-128 --prefix=/home/willschm/gcc/install/gnc
> --disable-bootstrap --enable-langua
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84751
--- Comment #3 from Will Schmidt ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> What configure flags for that specially configured gcc?
> Can you in a debugger pt whatever tree_operand_hash::hash is called on?
> I certainly can't reproduce thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84751
--- Comment #2 from Will Schmidt ---
Created attachment 43602
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43602&action=edit
config.log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68441
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67288
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This loop init stuff is created by the RTL loop optimisers; if those could see
0 cannot happen, they can optimise this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32834
Bug 32834 depends on bug 64124, which changed state.
Bug 64124 Summary: [F95] Valid constant expr rejected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64124
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64124
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68441
Bug 68441 depends on bug 70409, which changed state.
Bug 70409 Summary: Silent truncation of character parameters with len=huge()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70409
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70409
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64124
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Mar 8 19:06:57 2018
New Revision: 258368
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258368&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-08 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/64124
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70409
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Mar 8 19:06:57 2018
New Revision: 258368
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258368&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-08 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/64124
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70409
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Mar 8 19:01:23 2018
New Revision: 258367
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258367&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-08 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/64124
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64124
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Mar 8 19:01:23 2018
New Revision: 258367
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258367&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-08 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/64124
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84760
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84764
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
__int128 is not an extended integer type in the C sense. The main reason is
because intmax_t is not defined as __int128.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84764
--- Comment #1 from Pascal Cuoq ---
I meant "the warning implies that the constant is typed as unsigned long
long...".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84764
Bug ID: 84764
Summary: Wrong warning "so large that it is unsigned" for
__int128 constant
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84277
--- Comment #18 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Otherwise this looks good:
>
> === acats Summary ===
> # of expected passes 2315
> # of unexpected failures 5
> *** FAILURES: c23003b c23003g c23003i c250002 c380004
>
> That'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84737
--- Comment #5 from Pat Haugen ---
Created attachment 43601
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43601&action=edit
ipa-cp dump (r256887)
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> Thank you, may I please ask you for the IPA CP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84277
--- Comment #17 from Rainer Emrich ---
Otherwise this looks good:
=== acats Summary ===
# of expected passes2315
# of unexpected failures5
*** FAILURES: c23003b c23003g c23003i c250002 c380004
That's on par w
This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format.
If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails.
You can read the original version online:
http://ymlpsend3.com/zZdRJa
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84760
--- Comment #2 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I don't argue either way on this, but it looks to me like we do not currently
have support for __int128 with vec_ld.
1. I can't fine it in the rs6000-c tables.
2. This test fails to compile:
#in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84521
--- Comment #21 from Eric Botcazou ---
> You can use __builtin_setjmp and __builtin_longjmp in the same function,
> only if they use a different buffer. Otherwise it is invalid.
Yes, that's invalid.
> CCing Eric for the other __builtin_setjmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84763
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84521
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67288
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84763
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84763
Bug ID: 84763
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in i386_pe_seh_cold_init
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84521
--- Comment #19 from Wilco ---
(In reply to sudi from comment #17)
> I looked up what other targets were doing and one thing found to be
> interesting was that a lot of them are defining the target hook
> TARGET_BUILTIN_SETJMP_FRAME_VALUE. In AAr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84753
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84753
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84748
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84760
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
Hm. For this one I think I would recommend we just remove the partial
implementation, provided that vec_ld already supports vector __int128.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84748
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Mar 8 15:50:25 2018
New Revision: 258366
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258366&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR target/84748: Mark *compare_cstore_insn as cl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84762
Bug ID: 84762
Summary: GCC for PowerPC32 violates the SysV ABI spec for small
struct returns
Product: gcc
Version: 6.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84569
--- Comment #5 from Jö ---
I can report that that indeed fixes the issue for us; the unit test now
compiles fine with gcc revision 258359. Thanks a lot!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84552
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Mar 8 14:41:39 2018
New Revision: 258365
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258365&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-08 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/84552
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84761
Bug ID: 84761
Summary: AddressSanitizer is not compatible with glibc 2.27 on
x86
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84658
--- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84658
>
> --- Comment #22 from Martin Liška ---
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #21)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84760
Bug ID: 84760
Summary: Finish implementation of __builtin_altivec_lvx_v1ti
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
1 - 100 of 171 matches
Mail list logo