https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114217
--- Comment #6 from Akihiko Odaki ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/
> include/asm-generic/unaligned.h?h=v6.7
>
> is correct except it should not expose
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114218
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Summary|-Wodr could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114218
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
To be clear: what I'd like is if the warning included "MAGIC_NUMBER was 42 at
one instance, and 100 at another".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114218
Bug ID: 114218
Summary: -Wdr could show constant values
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114217
--- Comment #5 from Akihiko Odaki ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/
> include/asm-generic/unaligned.h?h=v6.7
>
> is correct except it should not expose
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114217
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/asm-generic/unaligned.h?h=v6.7
is correct except it should not expose get_unaligned/put_unaligned since the
undefined code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114217
--- Comment #3 from Akihiko Odaki ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> >but also emits code to assert alignment.
>
>
> Yes because the code is broken still.
>
> The alignment is not about when the access happens but rather when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114217
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
That is if we have:
void f(void)
{
char t[sizeof(int)] __attribute__((aligned(1)));
int *a = (int*)
//
}
The above code is undefined even if you have not accessed via *a at all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114217
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114217
Bug ID: 114217
Summary: -fsanitize=alignment false positive with intended
unaligned struct member access
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Hi,
The attached patch should fix PR 101737. It's a rather obvious oversight.
Sanity tested with 'make all-gcc'. Committed to master, gcc-13, gcc-12,
gcc-11.
Cheers,
Oleg
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR target/101737
* config/sh/sh.cc (sh_is_nott_insn): Handle case where the input
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111001
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101737
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101737
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Oleg Endo
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ec65cb598cc6fa126b458cf716438cc3f2404f3c
commit r11-11267-gec65cb598cc6fa126b458cf716438cc3f2404f3c
Author: Oleg Endo
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101737
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Oleg Endo
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bbae41dc9033d6f0a9f8bc56cc6f80d90286996c
commit r12-10192-gbbae41dc9033d6f0a9f8bc56cc6f80d90286996c
Author: Oleg Endo
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101737
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Oleg Endo
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a38b3dfc71d6b5d07477715a3a6df7b73ebaa68d
commit r13-8402-ga38b3dfc71d6b5d07477715a3a6df7b73ebaa68d
Author: Oleg Endo
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101737
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Oleg Endo :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4ff8ffe7331cf174668cf5c729fd68ff327ab014
commit r14-9278-g4ff8ffe7331cf174668cf5c729fd68ff327ab014
Author: Oleg Endo
Date: Sun Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114212
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
For mod, it is
`MIN % 64` -> `a >= 64 ? 0 : a`
`(a >= 64 ? 64 : a) % 64` -> `a >= 64 ? (64 % 64) : (a % 64)` -> `a >= 64 ? 0 :
a` as a will be `a < 64` in the false case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114214
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-03-03
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114216
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>when building gcc with CFLAGS=" -std=gnu2x "
Why are you building with this?
Also basically target.c is still written in C99.
This patch should fix the issue though:
```
diff --git a/libgomp/target.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114216
Bug ID: 114216
Summary: gnu2x: error: too many arguments to function ‘host_fn’
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114215
--- Comment #7 from cqwrteur ---
__builtin_trap() is just to crash the program.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114215
--- Comment #6 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Still waiting on a full application rather then small benchmark type
> sources. The heurstic here is that if you call operator[] multiple times, it
> might be better
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114215
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Still waiting on a full application rather then small benchmark type sources.
The heurstic here is that if you call operator[] multiple times, it might be
better not to inline it for size reasons.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114215
--- Comment #4 from cqwrteur ---
void test_demovector(checkedvector& vec, __SIZE_TYPE__ x) noexcept
{
for(__SIZE_TYPE__ i = 0; i < x; i++)
vec[i]=5;
}
void test_demovector_forceinline(checkedvector& vec, __SIZE_TYPE__ x) noexcept
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114215
--- Comment #3 from cqwrteur ---
test_demovector(checkedvector&):
pushq %rbx
movq%rdi, %rbx
pushq $4
popq%rsi
callcheckedvector::operator[](unsigned long)
movq%rbx, %rdi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114215
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114215
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 57597
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57597=edit
Testcase
Please next time attach the testcase rather than just link to godbolt.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114215
Bug ID: 114215
Summary: GCC makes wrong decision for inline with -Os or -Oz to
deal with trivial functions
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114214
Bug ID: 114214
Summary: `(x&~M)|((x)&~(y))` -> `x&~(y)` is not done
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107400
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 107400, which changed state.
Bug 107400 Summary: [c++ modules] ICE tree check: expected class 'type', have
'declaration' (template_decl) in get_originating_module_decl, at
cp/module.cc:18587
Hi,
This patch fixes a wrong code issue in the D front-end where lowered
struct comparisons would reinterpret fields with a different (usually
bigger) alignment than the original. Use `build_aligned_type' to
preserve the alignment when casting away for such comparisons.
Bootstrapped and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114171
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114171
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3e60064a03a1a6d38ceb5ca4eb7e1f4d30a8aed1
commit r11-11266-g3e60064a03a1a6d38ceb5ca4eb7e1f4d30a8aed1
Author: Iain Buclaw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114171
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ff9d13e0110b46b39cacb431926515cf4be3aa8d
commit r12-10191-gff9d13e0110b46b39cacb431926515cf4be3aa8d
Author: Iain Buclaw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114171
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cdcbc56c3f5a04e4e7cccdc70a420bc069a0941f
commit r13-8401-gcdcbc56c3f5a04e4e7cccdc70a420bc069a0941f
Author: Iain Buclaw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114171
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:623f52775e677bb3d6e9e7ef97196741dd904b1e
commit r14-9277-g623f52775e677bb3d6e9e7ef97196741dd904b1e
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Sun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113125
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113758
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
Hi,
This patch backports a fix to code generation when passing objects by
invisible reference that have a defined cpctor or dtor.
When generating the argument, check the isCalleeDestroyingArgs hook, and
force a TARGET_EXPR to be created if true, so that a reference to the
live object isn't
Hi,
This patch backports an ICE triggered in the D front-end.
The cause of the ICE was that TYPE_DECLs were only being generated for
structs with members, not opaque structs.
Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-linux-gnu/-m32, backported
to releases/gcc-13, releases/gcc-12, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113758
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8ceb48b1f8ebb9957d896082b0b503cf7f81cace
commit r11-11264-g8ceb48b1f8ebb9957d896082b0b503cf7f81cace
Author: Iain Buclaw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113125
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3c0c18799eff99221d2eaae3de6fca6da14269dd
commit r11-11263-g3c0c18799eff99221d2eaae3de6fca6da14269dd
Author: Iain Buclaw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113758
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e276a94c061861a09dd790d206ec73d90478925e
commit r12-10189-ge276a94c061861a09dd790d206ec73d90478925e
Author: Iain Buclaw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113125
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f3567889645ce1fed79c13d644313aa2a8ab9318
commit r12-10188-gf3567889645ce1fed79c13d644313aa2a8ab9318
Author: Iain Buclaw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113758
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e64fbf38e0b408696a97fbceb131ed1d19cbcd03
commit r13-8399-ge64fbf38e0b408696a97fbceb131ed1d19cbcd03
Author: Iain Buclaw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113125
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:341fa4d2340b21c322082fb5a7cad18a48b9eda7
commit r13-8398-g341fa4d2340b21c322082fb5a7cad18a48b9eda7
Author: Iain Buclaw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114213
Bug ID: 114213
Summary: `MIN, CST> / CST` -> `a >= CST ? 1 : -(a
<= -CST)`
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113841
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
There's no problem with pair, it's basic_string that fails.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114103
--- Comment #15 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2024-03-01 5:42 p.m., redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114103
>
> Jonathan Wakely changed:
>
> What|Removed
Snapshot gcc-13-20240302 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/13-20240302/
and on various mirrors, see https://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 13 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114212
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note I noticed this when looking at
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/83676 but that is totally unrelated
since that is for mlir rather than LLVM's IR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114212
Bug ID: 114212
Summary: `MIN / CST` -> `uns >= CST`
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114209
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-03-02
Ever confirmed|0
Some of the libbacktrace tests link a program and then modify the
debug info in some way. When configured with --enable-shared the
linking, using libtool, generates a shell script. That causes the
tests to fail because they can't modify the debug info of a shell
script. This patch, originally
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101523
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114211
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-03-02
Target Milestone|---
This patch to libbacktrace corrects the LZMA block header parsing to
skip all the padding bytes, verifying that they are zero. This fixes
https://github.com/ianlancetaylor/libbacktrace/issues/118.
Bootstrapped and ran libbacktrace tests on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. I was
able to verify that the
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 11:24:00AM +0100, Arthur Cohen wrote:
> On 2/29/24 21:22, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> >I think what needs to happen is have a config check for the minimum
> >versions of cargo and rustc that are now needed for when configuring
> >for --enable-languages=rust.
>
> Yes -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113841
--- Comment #11 from Viktor Ostashevskyi ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> This one's much harder to fix:
>
> #include
>
> template
> struct Alloc
> {
> using value_type = T;
>
> Alloc(int) { }
>
> template
gnu-as --enable-libsanitizer
--disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r14-9272-20240302122604-gc8d12343a94-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 14.0.1 20240302 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101523
Sarah Julia Kriesch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sarah.kriesch at opensuse dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114207
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114210
Bug ID: 114210
Summary: Potential bug wrt __restrict on member function
decl/def
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114141
--- Comment #14 from Paul Thomas ---
To fix the parentheses wrinkle, this works:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/match.cc b/gcc/fortran/match.cc
index eee569dac91..64f61c50c66 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/match.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/match.cc
@@ -1963,6
Hi Dr. Brown,
Sorry for forgetting to CC you. Could you please review my patch
series when you get a chance? This patch series adds documentation
only for built-ins I implemented. To minimize git conflicts, I will
add documentation updates to my existing patches after this patch
series gets
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #13 from g.peterh...@t-online.de ---
Thanks for the suggestions:
template
constexpr _Tp __hypot3(_Tp __x, _Tp __y, _Tp __z) noexcept
{
if (std::isinf(__x) | std::isinf(__y) | std::isinf(__z))
[[__unlikely__]]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114206
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arsen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114208
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I wonder if this is related to r14-6674-g4759383245ac97 .
Seems unrelated: When I reverse-apply r14-6674 then the issue does not go away.
On 2/15/24 14:08, Jonathan Yong wrote:
Attached patch OK?
Copy/pasted for review convenience.
Ping.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114209
Bug ID: 114209
Summary: ICE: verify_gimple failed: incorrect sharing of tree
nodes at -O and above
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
This patch adds a warning switch for "#pragma once in main file". The
warning option name is Wpragma-once-outside-header, which is the same
as Clang.
PR preprocessor/89808
gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
* c-opts.cc (c_common_handle_option): Handle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114208
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I wonder if this is related to r14-6674-g4759383245ac97 .
Not unlikely. PR112525 tries to eliminate dead stores for arguments that are
passed. It seems
There are some places where avr.cc uses magic numbers like 17 that
are actually register numbers. This patch defines constants like
REG_17 and uses them instead of the magic numbers when a register
number is meant.
Johann
--
AVR: Use REG_ constants instead of magic numbers .
There are some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114206
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114208
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I wonder if this is related to r14-6674-g4759383245ac97 .
orted LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 14.0.1 20240302 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114206
--- Comment #3 from congli ---
How about this one: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/Wvhddb7nf?
We ensured the two `b`s are different at each f() call.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114207
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114206
--- Comment #2 from congli ---
That's correct. But I think it is not that reasonable if we treat the `b` like
`b` is a `static const` variable rather than a `const` variable? Any documents
telling this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114194
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||riscv
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114100
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:96bad6c06d0108014a2b0e5d0921cb18066bb789
commit r14-9271-g96bad6c06d0108014a2b0e5d0921cb18066bb789
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114207
Bug ID: 114207
Summary: Wrong code bug since GCC 12.1
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Applied this addendum to avr PR114100:
When the frame pointer is adjusted and -mtiny-stack is set,
then it is enough to adjust the low part of the frame pointer.
Johann
--
AVR: target/114100 - Factor in -mtiny-stack in frame pointer adjustments
gcc/
PR target/114100
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114206
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114206
Bug ID: 114206
Summary: GCC generates wrong-code
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109398
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
So this might not be a clang extension after all. see
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/83658 (and DE-137 discussion in the
meeting minutes:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114205
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114204
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
```
int f(int a, int b)
{
if (a == -b)
return a + b;
return 0;
}
int f1(int a, int b)
{
if (a == b)
return a - b;
return 0;
}
```
Should be both handled
91 matches
Mail list logo
