https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89325
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89326
Bug ID: 89326
Summary: [RFE] Highlight `required from here` in compile-error
output
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89312
--- Comment #4 from Martin Husemann ---
This is scary.
So in the future there will be valid reasons for the truncation warning, but
you are not offering any way to suppress the totally useless false positives?
My problem with this warning is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88858
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88858
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Feb 13 06:57:38 2019
New Revision: 268835
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268835=gcc=rev
Log:
Remove a barrier when EDGE_CROSSING is removed (PR lto/88858).
2019-02-13 Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89323
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89323
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89325
Bug ID: 89325
Summary: False warnings about "optimization attribute" on
operators when -fno-ipa-cp-clone
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89307
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89324
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89324
Bug ID: 89324
Summary: ICE in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2211 on
aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87689
--- Comment #17 from Alan Modra ---
> On platforms where varargs have a different calling
> signature from normal functions, this would be an ABI change.
True, but in C terms, gfortran is currently doing this:
void f (char *res, int reslen);
..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89323
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89323
Bug ID: 89323
Summary: Asan memory leak detection on x86 platform
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67823
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71829
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77304
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86961
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 87113, which changed state.
Bug 87113 Summary: ICE in adjust_temp_type at cp/constexpr.c:1205
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87113
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87113
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88003
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
That is, with this version of the test:
auto test() {
struct O {
struct N;
};
return O();
}
typedef decltype(test()) TN;
struct TN::N {};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88003
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89048
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88982
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r247842. Before that:
88982.C: In instantiation of ‘struct A’:
88982.C:10:14: required from here
88982.C:2:73: error: type mismatch in nontype parameter pack
template class ...Cs, Cs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88982
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89229
--- Comment #18 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> Comment on attachment 45685 [details]
> I am testing this
>
> The movsi change doesn't look entirely right to me. While OImode or TImode
> is not allowed in ext
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89229
--- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu ---
[hjl@gnu-4 gcc]$ cat /tmp/z.c
/* { dg-do compile { target { ! ia32 } } } */
/* { dg-options "-O2 -march=skylake-avx512" } */
extern long long i;
long long
foo1 (void)
{
register long long xmm16 __asm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89229
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu ---
[hjl@gnu-4 gcc]$ cat /tmp/y.c
/* { dg-do compile { target { ! ia32 } } } */
/* { dg-options "-O2 -march=skylake-avx512 -mprefer-vector-width=512" } */
extern float d;
void
foo1 (float x)
{
register float
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89193
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89229
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu ---
[hjl@gnu-4 gcc]$ cat /tmp/x.c
/* { dg-do compile { target { ! ia32 } } } */
/* { dg-options "-O2 -march=skylake-avx512 -mprefer-vector-width=512" } */
extern double d;
void
foo1 (double x)
{
register double
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89313
--- Comment #4 from Peter Bergner ---
Actually, the error message:
z1.c:7:1: error: unable to generate reloads for impossible constraints:
is a new LRA test that I added as part of one of my other commits that is
catching the illegal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89193
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Wed Feb 13 00:10:06 2019
New Revision: 268830
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268830=gcc=rev
Log:
PR go/89193
* Makefile.am (mostlyclean-local): Avoid getting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89321
--- Comment #3 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I'm not sure exactly what assert it is, because there is no assert on that line
of go-gcc.cc. But it is most likely an assertion saying that when compiling a
struct composite literal, the number of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89291
--- Comment #3 from zwieflhofer ---
Contacted NCAR, the providers of the source code. The bug is known to them and
they have a workaround:
Set
-DBUILD_RRTMG_FAST=0
to
-DBUILD_RRTMG_FAST=1
From my side, this bug report can be closed.
But I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88308
--- Comment #4 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Tracked down the difference between -m32 and -m64. In the -m64 case,
rs6000_emit_move calls force_const_mem and that will set LABEL_PRESERVE_P on a
label_ref that it finds, which is what marks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89313
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89321
--- Comment #2 from sean.wang at wdc dot com ---
I can certainly try. Based on the backtrace, do you have an educated guess on
what type of condition in the code that I can try to isolate? For example, what
does the assert condition mean? Thank
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #6 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
>
> Note the difference in mode for aarch64_classify_address. Not sure if this
> is because of the way my patch changes ivopt.
Yes, it ws my mistake in iv-use. with attached patch, I now get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45661|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89322
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89229
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Comment on attachment 45685
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45685
I am testing this
The movsi change doesn't look entirely right to me. While OImode or TImode is
not allowed in ext
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88993
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
--- Comment #13 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89312
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
I understand your frustration but there is no good way to tell a benign
truncation from a potentially dangerous bug, so GCC errs on the side of caution
here.
The -Wformat-truncation option detects a number
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89229
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|7.5 |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89229
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 45685
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45685=edit
I am testing this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89316
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #5)
> actually since all the bugs seem to be about different targets triggering
> that assert in different ways, would it be possible to replace it with an
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89313
--- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner ---
I'll have a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89321
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
In order to fix this problem I will most likely need some way to reproduce it.
Can you share a cut down version of the source code that triggers the problem?
Do you happen to know if the problem occurs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89316
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> > > There are other bugs open based on that assert failing; lemme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89316
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> > There are other bugs open based on that assert failing; lemme see if I can
> > find them...
>
> There might be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89316
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> There are other bugs open based on that assert failing; lemme see if I can
> find them...
There might be but this is a target specific related to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89229
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
[hjl@gnu-4 tmp]$ cat x.c
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-O2 -march=skylake-avx512" } */
extern int i;
int
foo1 (void)
{
register int xmm16 __asm ("xmm16") = i;
asm volatile ("" : "+v" (xmm16));
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89316
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Reverting that patch on gcc-8-branch fixes the bug:
--- a/gcc/ipa-inline.c
+++ b/gcc/ipa-inline.c
@@ -1166,7 +1166,6 @@ edge_badness (struct cgraph_edge *edge, bool dump)
overall_growth +=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45682|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88572
Will Wray changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wjwray at gmail dot com
--- Comment #15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84877
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89322
Bug ID: 89322
Summary: Use of new and -lsupc++ requires -lstdc++ on
architectures without atomics
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64242
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89284
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Alexandre Duret-Lutz from comment #6)
> I mentioned in my first comment that I had also cases that threw
> bad_weak_ptr.
> I've been able to reproduce those as follows:
>
> % cat badwptr.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89321
Bug ID: 89321
Summary: cross build with riscv64 gccgo compilation failed due
to assert in constructor_expression
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88248
--- Comment #6 from Harald Anlauf ---
Moving the check from gfc_define_st_label to gfc_reference_st_label:
Index: symbol.c
===
--- symbol.c(revision 268826)
+++ symbol.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89229
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> Though, is this really a regression? I mean, have we ever emitted better
> code?
It isn't a regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89229
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8 Regression]|[7/8/9 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85250
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89229
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
[hjl@gnu-4 i386]$ cat pr89229-2.c
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-O2 -march=skylake-avx512" } */
typedef __int128 __m128t __attribute__ ((__vector_size__ (16), __may_alias__));
__m128t
foo (void)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89144
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89144
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Feb 12 21:18:51 2019
New Revision: 268827
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268827=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/89144 - link error with constexpr initializer_list.
In this PR, we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89313
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89318
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89318
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Note the
> (insn:TI 64 23 27 (parallel [
> (set (mem/f/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 13 sp)
> (const_int 8 [0x8])) [25 data.fn+0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45672|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89318
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note the
(insn:TI 64 23 27 (parallel [
(set (mem/f/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 13 sp)
(const_int 8 [0x8])) [25 data.fn+0 S4 A64])
(reg/f:SI 12 ip [117]))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89318
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Can't reproduce with a cross:
./cc1 -quiet -nostdinc -march=armv7-a -mtune=cortex-a9 -mfpu=vfpv3-d16
-mfloat-abi=hard -O2 pr89318.i
succeeds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89318
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
the instruction looks like created by your patch?
* config/arm/ldrdstrd.md: Change peepholes to generate PARALLEL SImode
sets instead of single DImode set and define new insns to match this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89320
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89294
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4
vect5.s^M
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+^M
| 9.0.1 20190212 (experimental) (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) GCC error: |^M
| tree check: expected class 'constant', have 'binary' (mult_expr) in |^M
| valid_constant_size_p, at tree.c:7524
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89318
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 45681
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45681=edit
preprocessed isl_aff.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87689
--- Comment #16 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #12)
> A little more sophisticated.
>
> * fortran/trans-types.c (gfc_get_function_type): Use a varargs decl
> unless we have args other than hidden ones.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89317
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
If we avoid changing the type from int16_t to uint16_t, we get 2 calls to
memmove. They don't get expanded, probably because we fail to simplify the size
to 16 in gimple:
_1 = [(void *)this_5(D) + 16B];
_2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89317
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
Yes, I mean inefficient.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89318
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89318
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89317
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You mean inefficient, right? The effects are correct as far as I can see.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89314
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45680
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45680=edit
gcc9-pr89314.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88920
--- Comment #26 from Bill Schmidt ---
Yes, that indeed helps! With that we see it once per directory prior to
running the tests, like the other existing checks. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89311
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89299
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
For now I suggest this patch for the docs:
--- a/gcc/doc/extend.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/extend.texi
@@ -6815,6 +6815,11 @@ does not allow the exception to be caught, only to
perform an action.
It is undefined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89319
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
I expect this is a DUP of bug 55266 and many others. Vector lowering for
unsupported sizes is not done very cleverly...
Not closing in case there are some mitigations you can do in the ppc backend.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88368
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88294
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89297
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Summary|ICE: unexpected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89314
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88920
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45679
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45679=edit
gcc9-pr88920.patch
For that I agree it is annoying, does the following patch fix it?
There is another issue, once
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89275
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89308
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I looked through the various patches for the sanitizer stuff and the important
one that is missing is the one that disables ASLR when the sanitizers are in
use. This would "solve" the issue where
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89315
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89319
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 45678
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45678=edit
Power9 assembly code to show the poor code generation
This was the assembly code using -O3 -mcpu=power9
1 - 100 of 212 matches
Mail list logo
