https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105041
Surya Kumari Jangala changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
--- Comment #50 from Hongtao.liu ---
>
> On the RTL level likely simplify-rtx (or the variants used by combine)
> only have limited support for vector operations.
Instruction sequence window(more than 20 shift instructions) is too big for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
--- Comment #49 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1089d083117f28f3518f5ec3c7a153236cb92334
commit r13-1126-g1089d083117f28f3518f5ec3c7a153236cb92334
Author: liuhongt
Date: Tue May
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105993
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105994
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note with -fsanitize=address at runtime, GCC does detect this:
Program returned: 1
=
==1==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: stack-use-after-scope on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105994
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
const bar& test = h(foo{t})
The temporary for foo here since it is not bound directly to the variable bar,
goes out of scope after the statement is finished.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105994
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105994
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, but at -O1, strict aliasing is off so this should work ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105994
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Since bar and foo are not the same/compatible types this violates aliasing
rules. They might be layout compatible but they are compatible. Two different
things.
Also
int a = g(foo{5});
int b = g(foo{99});
return a + b;
}
It happens with -O1 - and more specifically, as long as `-finline -ftree-ccp
-ftree-sra` are enabled.
Version: gcc version 13.0.0 20220615 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105860
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105962
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105962
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:63c073199491b7ec2261d39af51c02147c2f0daf
commit r13-1119-g63c073199491b7ec2261d39af51c02147c2f0daf
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105975
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Schwinge ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #4)
> Thanks for the reproducer.
Glad that this approach did work.
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #6)
> Should be fixed now.
ACK, thanks.
k//binary-trunk-r13-1112-20220615134935-g49d14a841fd-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 13.0.0 20220615 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105986
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104871
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:82b771fd6cab421d92cc074a79f98389ac8569c3
commit r10-10848-g82b771fd6cab421d92cc074a79f98389ac8569c3
Author: Simon Wright
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105599
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
needed on 11.x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104871
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:64f5efce03c248af7f51d600b5519f46f64eea48
commit r12-8486-g64f5efce03c248af7f51d600b5519f46f64eea48
Author: Simon Wright
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105599
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:58c0bc2b62cdbbe9d9677b448fe52a8c54044276
commit r12-8484-g58c0bc2b62cdbbe9d9677b448fe52a8c54044276
Author: Iain Sandoe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105986
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105986
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105923
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #6)
> > .L3:
> > subl%r13d, %r12d
> > cmpl$1, %r12d
> > je .L6
> > salq$4, %r13
> > vmovapd a(%r13), %xmm0
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105717
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|10.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105992
Bug ID: 105992
Summary: memcmp(p, q, 7) == 0 can be optimized better on x86
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105989
--- Comment #2 from Michal Jankovič ---
Reading through gcc/cp/coroutines.cc, it seems like the coroutine frame is
indeed composed as a flat struct with fields for all the local variables,
temps, and special stuff needed by the actor.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105991
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host||powerpc64le-unknown-linux-g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105991
Bug ID: 105991
Summary: rldicl+sldi+add generated instead of rldimi
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105975
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105975
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9d2fe6d427b37755410bb4eb4ecce8382f2ebfc5
commit r13--g9d2fe6d427b37755410bb4eb4ecce8382f2ebfc5
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105969
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Overlapping elements is simply a consequence of the zero-sized-objects
extension, I don't see anything invalid here to reject (though there might
be undefined behavior at runtime when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105981
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12/13 regression]|[10/11/12 regression] Wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105981
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8aaa948059a8b5f0a62ad010d0aa6346b7ac9cd3
commit r13-1110-g8aaa948059a8b5f0a62ad010d0aa6346b7ac9cd3
Author: Richard Earnshaw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105983
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 53146
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53146=edit
gcc13-pr105983.patch
Full untested patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #39 from Jakub Jelinek ---
GCC didn't crash with SIGILL. GCC was asked to compile a program with AVX2
instruction set, it has done that. When such a program is run on a hardware
that doesn't support some of its instructions, it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #38 from John Kanapes ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #37)
> User error.
True. But gcc should complain and handle user errors, not crash with SIGILL:(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105983
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> > --- gcc/match.pd.jj 2022-06-15 12:52:04.640981511 +0200
> > +++ gcc/match.pd2022-06-15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105983
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> --- gcc/match.pd.jj 2022-06-15 12:52:04.640981511 +0200
> +++ gcc/match.pd 2022-06-15 15:28:55.916225336 +0200
> @@ -2379,14 +2379,14 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105938
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
That had a followup fix for nvptx, r13-285-ge7d9fdf5e0ee4c, which wasn't
backported yet it seems?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105938
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105981
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.5
Summary|Wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105990
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
Another case
static short a;
static int b;
void foo(void);
void bar9_(void);
int main() {
char c;
b = a = 23;
for (; b <= 1;)
a = 1;
bar9_();
c = a >= 18 || 2 > 2 >> a ? 1 : 1 <<
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105990
Bug ID: 105990
Summary: Dead code elimination failed at -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105983
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105981
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-06-15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105962
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #36 from John Kanapes ---
That's great news. Thank you so much:)
I have to ask: How did you come up with avx? You couldn't even reproduce the
problem in your new gccs on newer cpus...
I could live with a little better gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105860
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #35 from John Kanapes ---
Changed all my Makefiles to use -mavx acceleration...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105870
--- Comment #7 from JUN SHA ---
Ping.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105974
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105974
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dc8071da0e89eab4935751f3b16745c95cbc0d30
commit r13-1108-gdc8071da0e89eab4935751f3b16745c95cbc0d30
Author: Richard Earnshaw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105917
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #34 from John Kanapes ---
You must be right. I checked in the web and found one more reference that says
it has only avx acceleration...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78492
--- Comment #6 from federico ---
I've attached a simple test program that confirms ICE on gfortran 11.3.0.
ICE is returned only if
- the non_overridable procedure is part of a generic type-bound interface
- that same generic is being called
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #33 from Sam James ---
As far as I can tell, that CPU might have AVX, but not AVX2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78492
--- Comment #5 from federico ---
Created attachment 53145
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53145=edit
test program: call non_overridable function from generic interface within
polymorphic procedure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #32 from John Kanapes ---
AMD FX(tm)-8320 Eight-Core Processor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #31 from Sam James ---
What CPU do you have?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #30 from John Kanapes ---
I checked without the -mavx2 option, and it worked with -O3 optimization, even
with gcc 9.4.0:)
It seems that whatever problem is related to that option.
Have you tried it with -mavx2 option in 9.5 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105983
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #29 from John Kanapes ---
Thx for trying it so fast.
I assume you have downloaded it, and no longer need the link:)
I have no problem with the -mavx2 option.
I have gcc 9.4.0, though. Have you tried it with it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105732
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105732
--- Comment #22 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b2f5dc82400fe04511b85caa8c80677f81eee415
commit r10-10846-gb2f5dc82400fe04511b85caa8c80677f81eee415
Author: Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105860
--- Comment #2 from John Hodge ---
Created attachment 53144
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53144=edit
Reproduction, partially minimised and including assertion
Attached is an updated reproduction, that includes asserts.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105732
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:49e320ac0792672e2137ca47215fd7f935302895
commit r11-10072-g49e320ac0792672e2137ca47215fd7f935302895
Author: Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105860
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #28 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Can't reproduce, neither with gcc 9.5 nor gcc 12.1. You are using -mavx2, are
you sure you have AVX2 ISA on the box you're running it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #27 from John Kanapes ---
Hi,
I have uploaded my sources to
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ao4l5h62h3paujq/test.tgz?dl=0
It is a tar.gzip archive. Expands to a test directory with flat files (10) and
1 Makefile. Main executable is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105984
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 53143
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53143=edit
gcc13-pr105984.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105971
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13 Regression] ICE in |[12 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105971
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8c2733e16ec1c0cdda3db4cdc5ad158a96a658e8
commit r13-1106-g8c2733e16ec1c0cdda3db4cdc5ad158a96a658e8
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105969
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:edb9330c29fe8a0a0b76df6fafd6a223a4d0e41f
commit r13-1105-gedb9330c29fe8a0a0b76df6fafd6a223a4d0e41f
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105975
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105973
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If the two noreturn functions are replaced with throwing exceptions, I get the
behaviour I expect:
if (n > (__PTRDIFF_MAX__ / sizeof(T)))
{
if (n > (__SIZE_MAX__ / sizeof(T)))
throw 1;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105254
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2636660b6f35423e0cfbf53bfad5c5fed6ae6471
commit r13-1103-g2636660b6f35423e0cfbf53bfad5c5fed6ae6471
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105940
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2636660b6f35423e0cfbf53bfad5c5fed6ae6471
commit r13-1103-g2636660b6f35423e0cfbf53bfad5c5fed6ae6471
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105973
--- Comment #4 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> possibly the noreturn predictor doesn't trigger here
The problem here is that we handle throw1 and throw2 as two independent
reason for code path to be unlikely. This makes us to look for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105977
--- Comment #2 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
Inline transform function does fixup_cfg and other mandatory things so
disabling it will likely cause other kind of ICEs as well. I wonder if
there is more robust way to do so (one can make
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 105726, which changed state.
Bug 105726 Summary: [10/11 Regression] spurious warning with -Warray-bounds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105726
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105726
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.3.1, 11.3.1
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105726
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:55ea76600843498048158ec08a661fe7f0c7bcb0
commit r10-10844-g55ea76600843498048158ec08a661fe7f0c7bcb0
Author: Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105989
--- Comment #1 from Michal Jankovič ---
Exploring further, this seems to be a symptom of a deeper issue - the coroutine
frame contains space for ALL variables of the coroutine, not just for the
maximally sized subset of the variables that can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105988
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105974
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rearnsha at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105971
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105984
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-06-15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105984
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105982
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105980
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105977
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.2
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105976
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I think I've seen a duplicate for this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105974
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105973
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105972
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105989
Bug ID: 105989
Summary: Coroutine frame space for temporaries in a co_await
expression is not reused
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105726
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d76c15430f74024f1658be55cfcd2ed9f581f1bd
commit r11-10069-gd76c15430f74024f1658be55cfcd2ed9f581f1bd
Author: Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105971
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105975
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Created attachment 53141
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53141=edit
'a.xnvptx-none.mkoffload.s.xz'
For cross-checking: if I now temporarily 'git revert
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
