https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93272
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93697
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93697
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Guenther :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:12c763c68a28d0c002b382b15ec138a8bc01e3bf
commit r10-6592-g12c763c68a28d0c002b382b15ec138a8bc01e3bf
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93696
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93670
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:62fc0a6ce28c502fc6a7b7c09157840bf98f945f
commit r10-6593-g62fc0a6ce28c502fc6a7b7c09157840bf98f945f
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93704
Bug ID: 93704
Summary: SPARC GCC emits R_SPARC_TLS_GD_CALL code not
understood by Solaris linker
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93703
Bug ID: 93703
Summary: global const getting lost in g++
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93684
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93697
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93300
Stam Markianos-Wright changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93685
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93700
Bug ID: 93700
Summary: new expression ignores deleted operator new.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93677
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93698
Bug ID: 93698
Summary: ICE on concept using generic lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93696
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47821
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47821=edit
gcc10-pr93696.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93670
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #14 from Richard Earnshaw ---
With the simpler test case we see
Breakpoint 1, try_combine (i3=0x764d33c0, i2=0x764d3380, i1=0x0,
i0=0x0, new_direct_jump_p=0x7fffd850,
last_combined_insn=0x764d33c0)
at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93686
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93685
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93699
Bug ID: 93699
Summary: [gcc10] Invalid operator== (returning non-bool type)
candidate
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93701
Bug ID: 93701
Summary: ICE on associate of wrongly accessed array
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93678
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93679
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #5 from Roman Zhuykov ---
Created attachment 47820
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47820=edit
Considered "moving sms earlier" patch
I haven't tested "moving sms earlier" patch since 2011. But I remember there
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93687
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93702
Bug ID: 93702
Summary: Bug box when using Indefinite_Holders.To_Holder in
expression function
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93704
--- Comment #1 from Vita Batrla ---
[1] https://www.uclibc.org/docs/tls.pdf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93704
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
How did you configure gcc?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93703
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to felix-gcc from comment #2)
> OK that answers half of the mystery, but why is foo not mangled?
Because the ABI says so. Only names which can have overloading applied
are usually mangled, that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93695
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88819
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93697
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93704
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93704
--- Comment #5 from Vita Batrla ---
To answer previous question,
here are configure options for GCC in Solaris:
https://github.com/oracle/solaris-userland/blob/60efc343ffab1adac2d1c9cac7629af26d40de50/components/gcc9/Makefile#L91
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93705
Bug ID: 93705
Summary: [C++2a] Non-type literal class template-parameter
types with mutable data members should not be allowed
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93706
Bug ID: 93706
Summary: [GCOV] function with inline attribute leads to
incorrect code coverage
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93707
Bug ID: 93707
Summary: ICE in perlbench from SPEC2017
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93704
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|sparc-solaris |sparc-solaris2.*
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #160 from Peter Bisroev ---
Created attachment 47824
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47824=edit
.o, .s and RTL dumps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #161 from Peter Bisroev ---
Hi Dave,
I have added attachment 47824 (sancov.dump.tar.xz) containing .o, .s and RTL
dumps as you have requested. It is for the compilation of gcc/sancov.c in gcc
8.3.0 using 4.7.4 as a host compiler.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93703
--- Comment #2 from felix-gcc at fefe dot de ---
OK that answers half of the mystery, but why is foo not mangled?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93700
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid, wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93707
fxue at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88819
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:54947e4db0a98a9190bab263e6ae539065ac52c5
commit r10-6595-g54947e4db0a98a9190bab263e6ae539065ac52c5
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93288
--- Comment #12 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to pmatos from comment #11)
> (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #10)
> > Should be fixed by the above commit.
>
> David, does this mean the analyzer has C++ support now or just that this
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93684
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e428a9cf85a8bdde9d031a215e10bd96eb3b789a
commit r10-6594-ge428a9cf85a8bdde9d031a215e10bd96eb3b789a
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93684
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93703
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93707
--- Comment #1 from fxue at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 47825
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47825=edit
A simplified case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93707
--- Comment #2 from fxue at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For a self-recursive function, a for-all-contexts clone could generate an edge
whose callee is not the function. Thus, to check whether an edge stands for a
recursive call during cloning, we should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88819
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93710
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #162 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2020-02-12 10:38 a.m., peter.bisroev at groundlabs dot com wrote:
> The exact HP linker errors from linking cc1, cc1plus and lto1 were (I was
> compiling in parallel):
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92010
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
template
void foo(const T t = "; ")
{
}
int main()
{
foo ();
}
$ ./cc1plus -quiet 92010.C
92010.C: In function ‘int main()’:
92010.C:8:8: internal compiler error: in tsubst_default_argument, at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86650
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89953
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93710
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Wilco Dijkstra :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5bfc8303ffe2d86e938d45f13cd99a39469dac4f
commit r10-6598-g5bfc8303ffe2d86e938d45f13cd99a39469dac4f
Author: Wilco Dijkstra
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93712
Bug ID: 93712
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in convert_like_real, at
cp/call.c:7466
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93710
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
With
--- a/gcc/cp/call.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/call.c
@@ -4172,8 +4172,9 @@ build_user_type_conversion_1 (tree totype, tree expr, int
flags,
if (complain & tf_error)
{
auto_diagnostic_group d;
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80329
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36725
Thomas Henlich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
Bug 90374 depends on bug 36725, which changed state.
Bug 36725 Summary: g0 edit descriptor: Missing compile-time checking for
invalid g0.d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36725
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93191
--- Comment #2 from Will Wray ---
Actually, the issue now appears to be not with variadic args directly but with
deduction (variadic Args are necessarily deduced, whether via template Arg or
auto placeholder).
So, for single arg, this works
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85957
--- Comment #27 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Rich Felker from comment #25)
> I think standards-conforming excess precision should be forced on, and added
> to C++; there are just too many dangerous ways things can break as it is
> now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93713
Bug ID: 93713
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in equivalently_constrained, at
cp/constraint.cc:2949
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93715
Bug ID: 93715
Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE in
gfc_trans_auto_array_allocation, at
fortran/trans-array.c:6320
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93714
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93549
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93711
Bug ID: 93711
Summary: ICE: [[no_unique_address] when constructing via
template helper
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93576
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|error-recovery, |ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93708
Bug ID: 93708
Summary: missing warning on memset overflow with transposed
arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93709
Bug ID: 93709
Summary: [10 regression] fortran.dg/minlocval_4.f90 fails on
power 9 after r10-4160
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93710
Bug ID: 93710
Summary: poor location in diagnostics of messages about array
initializers
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93710
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
For the whole testcase with the patch we generate:
93710-2.C:6:3: error: conversion from ‘long int’ to ‘A’ is ambiguous
6 | 0L,
| ^~
93710-2.C:1:21: note: candidate: ‘A::A(char*)’
1 |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93582
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47826
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47826=edit
gcc10-pr93582.patch
Untested patch for the first step, going to test this now on both little and
big endian. If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85957
--- Comment #26 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Adding the support for C++ would also be a matter for people who care
about this platform that few people do now care about.
I suspect that if you force the back-end insn pattern effects
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93711
--- Comment #1 from Evan Teran ---
As a follow-up, it appears that the optimization level is a factor. I only get
the ICE in my builds which don't pass a -O flag.
Here's a live example that can be experimented with:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93191
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Thanks Will. I think I'll email CWG and ask about it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93658
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93714
Bug ID: 93714
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in gfc_check_same_strlen, at
fortran/check.c:1253
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93711
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93712
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93713
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93713
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r10-3735-gcb57504a550158913258e5be8ddb991376475efb
commit cb57504a550158913258e5be8ddb991376475efb
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Wed Oct 9 13:20:32 2019 -0400
Update the concepts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36725
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Henlich ---
Created attachment 47827
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47827=edit
Proposed patch to perform runtime check in fmt_g0_4.f08
This checks ensure that G0.d output is not broken.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93607
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88781
Bug 88781 depends on bug 93646, which changed state.
Bug 93646 Summary: confusing -Wstringop-truncation on strncat where
-Wstringop-overflow is expected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93646
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93646
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93646
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0a0de9636d29a378961e4c98a129421229918052
commit r10-6600-g0a0de9636d29a378961e4c98a129421229918052
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93694
--- Comment #3 from Roland Illig ---
> (Obsolete, ld_classic only) -sectcreate segname sectname file
segname, sectname and file should be marked as .
> -segprot max_prot init_prot\tThe protection values are
This like only describes the syntax
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85723
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93712
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Specifically caused by this hunk:
@@ -1066,7 +1069,7 @@ build_array_conv (tree type, tree ctor, int flags,
tsubst_flags_t complain)
c->rank = rank;
c->user_conv_p = user;
c->bad_p = bad;
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #164 from Peter Bisroev ---
Created attachment 47829
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47829=edit
GCC 4.9.4 gimple-expr.c dump (aCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #165 from Peter Bisroev ---
Hi Dave,
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #162)
> On 2020-02-12 10:38 a.m., peter.bisroev at groundlabs dot com wrote:
> > The exact HP linker errors from linking cc1, cc1plus and lto1 were (I was
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93716
Bug ID: 93716
Summary: [feature request] Improve error message for Classes
without a default constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93663
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93658
--- Comment #9 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> On the #c7 testcase, this started with
> r8-6072-ga3a821c903c9fa2288712d31da2038d0297babcb (so I wonder why this
> isn't a 8/9/10 Regression).
I'm not sure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93663
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3f3932a0ec875cb7cca187018f3f8f05f2519d3e
commit r10-6602-g3f3932a0ec875cb7cca187018f3f8f05f2519d3e
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #16 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It is not the same cost. It reduces the path length.
1 - 100 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
