https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44032
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #7)
> Richard says the FSF doesn't object to combinations of GFDL code from the
> manual with GPL code from the source and that we can put a statement to this
> effect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91959
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91943
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91942
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91942
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sat Oct 5 04:05:05 2019
New Revision: 276620
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276620=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-10-04 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/91942
* io.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91785
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91785
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sat Oct 5 03:55:05 2019
New Revision: 276619
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276619=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-10-04 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/91785
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91784
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89078
Bug 89078 depends on bug 42607, which changed state.
Bug 42607 Summary: add information about how to compile a module
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42607
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42607
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42118
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47054
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91994
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10 Regression] r276327 |[10 Regression] r276327
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82752
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82752
--- Comment #2 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Fri Oct 4 21:56:14 2019
New Revision: 276605
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276605=gcc=rev
Log:
Add strftime format checking support for C2x %OB and %Ob (bug 82752).
C2x adds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91994
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> lzma_sha256_update in sha256.c is miscompiled with -O3 -march=skylake.
> Correct code:
>
> L42:
> ...
> vpshufb %ymm7, %ymm1, %ymm0
> vmovdqa %ymm0, (%rsp)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91977
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91977
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Oct 4 21:29:41 2019
New Revision: 276603
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276603=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/91977 - missing -Wstringop-overflow on memcpy into a pointer plus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 91977, which changed state.
Bug 91977 Summary: missing -Wstringop-overflow on memcpy into a pointer plus
offset
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91977
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82176
--- Comment #5 from Gregory Fuchedzhy ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3)
> *** Bug 91998 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Not exactly a duplicate, but related.
Clang implemented an additional __FILE_NAME__ macro.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91967
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82176
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82176
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fuchedzhy at google dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91998
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91998
Bug ID: 91998
Summary: Add a __FILE_NAME__ macro
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91994
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
lzma_sha256_update in sha256.c is miscompiled with -O3 -march=skylake.
Correct code:
L42:
...
vpshufb %ymm7, %ymm1, %ymm0
vmovdqa %ymm0, (%rsp)
leaq64(%r13), %rdi
vpshufb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91543
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91997
Bug ID: 91997
Summary: pretty printers: The __node_type type alias _Hashtable
is not available
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91996
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91996
Bug ID: 91996
Summary: fold non-constant strlen relational expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91994
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
liblzma/check/sha256.c is miscompiled.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85401
coypu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91801
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91991
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91991
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Fri Oct 4 19:08:09 2019
New Revision: 276596
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276596=gcc=rev
Log:
[preprocessor/91991] column location overflow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91995
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson ---
Created attachment 46997
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46997=edit
Workaround patch
Patch which avoids the miscompilation by changing the source code to replace
these
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91995
Bug ID: 91995
Summary: gnat miscompilation and bootstrap failure on
m68k-linux
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91994
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91994
Bug ID: 91994
Summary: [10 Regression] r276327 miscompiled 557.xz_r in SPEC
CPU 2017
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91993
Bug ID: 91993
Summary: Spurious -Wconversion warning with
-fsanitize=undefined
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91992
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab ---
On aarch64, I see
*** stack smashing detected ***: terminated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91992
--- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Created attachment 46996
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46996=edit
index0-out.go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91992
--- Comment #3 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I don't know what is happening here.
The way this test works is that the file gcc/testsuite/go.test/test/index.go
and gcc/testsuite/go.test/test/index0.go are compiled together, producing a
file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91992
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91992
Bug ID: 91992
Summary: gcc/testsuite/go/index0-out.x SEGV and spinlock during
testsuite run
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91985
--- Comment #1 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Fri Oct 4 16:08:06 2019
New Revision: 276588
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276588=gcc=rev
Log:
Mark C2x built-in functions as such.
Various built-in functions that GCC has as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91947
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81091
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81091
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Oct 4 15:08:23 2019
New Revision: 276585
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276585=gcc=rev
Log:
Build filesystem library with large file support
Enable AC_SYS_LARGEFILE to set
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91947
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Oct 4 15:08:23 2019
New Revision: 276585
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276585=gcc=rev
Log:
Build filesystem library with large file support
Enable AC_SYS_LARGEFILE to set
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91981
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Attempting shrink-wrapping optimization.
Block 2 needs the prologue.
(That's the entry block, already). And in fact it does need the prologue,
it has
movq%rdi, %rbx # 2 [c=4 l=3]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91991
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91981
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Okay, I can reproduce it now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91981
--- Comment #4 from Antony Polukhin ---
It was broken in GCC-9, GCC-8.3 and below do not have this issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91991
Bug ID: 91991
Summary: ICE in linemap_macro_map_lookup when LTO-building
SQLite after r275402
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91968
--- Comment #5 from Keith Seitz ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Fixed on trunk, I'm considering backporting after a while.
Confirmed. Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91981
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So this works just fine with a compiler from a year ago.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83534
Kamlesh Kumar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kamleshbhalui at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91975
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Ick. Have to sort through the fallout below:
>
> FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/ivopts-3.C -std=gnu++14 scan-tree-dump ivopts
> "Selected IV set for loop [0-9]* at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91981
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I didn't have an x86 C++ compiler handy, so I tried on powerpc. This
isn't a big problem there, since we do separate shrink-wrapping by
default on powerpc; disabling that makes this pretty bad here,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91968
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Oct 4 11:37:16 2019
New Revision: 276571
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276571=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-10-04 Richard Biener
PR lto/91968
* tree.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91968
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91975
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Ick. Have to sort through the fallout below:
FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/ivopts-3.C -std=gnu++14 scan-tree-dump ivopts "Selected
IV set for loop [0-9]* at [^ ]*:64, 3 avg niters, 1 IVs"
FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91769
--- Comment #10 from Aurelien Jarno ---
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91769
--- Comment #9 from Dragan Mladjenovic ---
Sorry for the delay. I somehow managed to get my git svn rebase to take hours.
Both patches have been backported.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91769
--- Comment #8 from draganm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: draganm
Date: Fri Oct 4 11:10:01 2019
New Revision: 276570
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276570=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport fix for PR target/91769
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-10-04 Dragan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91990
Bug ID: 91990
Summary: Too slow compilation of recursively-nested template
class with two instances of its template parent
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91989
Bug ID: 91989
Summary: libssp/spp.c: __[stack_]chk_fail() may run arbitrary
code if __builtin_trap() returns
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91702
--- Comment #3 from draganm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: draganm
Date: Fri Oct 4 10:57:48 2019
New Revision: 276569
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276569=gcc=rev
Log:
Backprot fix for uninitialised use in mips_split_move
Fixes PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91474
--- Comment #10 from draganm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: draganm
Date: Fri Oct 4 10:57:48 2019
New Revision: 276569
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276569=gcc=rev
Log:
Backprot fix for uninitialised use in mips_split_move
Fixes PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70929
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc-bugzilla at tobias dot
goedder
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91988
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91988
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
The failure is triggered by compile-time(!)
Breakpoint 6, symbol_table::create_edge (this=0x76810100,
caller=,
callee=, call_stmt=0x77fefea0,
count=..., indir_unknown_callee=false)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91952
--- Comment #5 from Allison Karlitskaya
---
One could imagine (as a first step) that __default_value__() would be
implemented by way of a simple code transformation whenever it is encountered.
An additional block could be added and the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91952
--- Comment #4 from Allison Karlitskaya
---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> First of all, not all automatic vars live on stack, some live in registers.
Sure. The register could also be initialised to the same value, of course.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91988
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> I see IPA-CP being applied and that function not inlined.
>
> Deciding on inlining of small functions. Starting with size 9.
> Enqueueing calls in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91987
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, if clang is right here, we'd need to force arguments not just with
is_gimple_reg_type, but also with all other types that are not
TREE_ADDRESSABLE, into temporaries (perhaps with a first check we really
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91988
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91987
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Probably, but aggregate copy of TREE_ADDRESSABLE aggregates might be a
> problem.
> For the arguments, I'm not planning to do anything myself, because I don't
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85535
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini ---
Any news about this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91988
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Gödderz
---
Happens with GCC 9.1.0 as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91987
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91987
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91987
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #3)
> Ick. I'd say we should unconditionally guard the transform
> with the appropriate TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS check?
See above, wouldn't that mean throwing the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91982
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Oct 4 09:18:26 2019
New Revision: 276566
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276566=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-10-04 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/91982
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91982
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91987
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91987
>
> --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> So for the shifts we'd need additionally:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91952
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91967
--- Comment #3 from bob wilkinson ---
You are correct it is inline assembly ...
4768 #elif (!defined(__native_client__)) &&\
4769 ((defined(__clang__) || defined(__GNUC__)) && \
4770 (defined(__x86_64__) ||
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91987
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So for the shifts we'd need additionally:
--- gcc/fold-const.c.jj 2019-09-02 15:29:34.548515139 +0200
+++ gcc/fold-const.c2019-10-04 10:44:23.319883187 +0200
@@ -9447,16 +9447,23 @@ fold_binary_loc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91987
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
To sum up IRC discussion with richi, he doesn't want this to be in the
gimplifier, as it is one FE specific, which means cp-gimplify.c is where this
needs to be done.
Furthermore, if we there have a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91988
Bug ID: 91988
Summary: Inlining fails with LTO enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56363
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91968
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
So the simple reason is we strip them during free-lang-data. Fix:
Index: gcc/tree.c
===
--- gcc/tree.c (revision 276396)
+++ gcc/tree.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91986
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91952
--- Comment #2 from Allison Karlitskaya
---
Consider this example in way of clarification:
void cleanup_func (void **ptr);
void *init (void);
void
function (bool condition)
{
if (condition)
goto out;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91982
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
So somehow
last_5 = _4 >= min_v_11(D) ? last_16 : i_17;
has been removed. I see
last_5 = .FOLD_EXTRACT_LAST (...
in the IL now. Removing old stmts during transform is really fragile...
(but yes,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91983
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91982
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91981
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91975
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
