https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105532
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|UBSAN:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105532
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, so prec is 0 here.
gcc_checking_assert (prec < HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT);
int shift = HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - prec;
return ((HOST_WIDE_INT) ((unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) src << shift)) >>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106602
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106602
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Vineet Gupta from comment #14)
> (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #13)
> > Trying 7, 8, 9 -> 10:
> > 7: r140:DI=0x1
> > 8: r141:DI=r140:DI<<0x26
> > REG_DEAD r140:DI
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106602
--- Comment #15 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
THe hope is the shift 6 combines with the first shift you emit for
(set (reg:DI 137)
(and:DI (reg:DI 138)
(const_int 274877906880 [0x3fffc0])))
Conceptually this is similar to creating
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106602
--- Comment #14 from Vineet Gupta ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #13)
> Trying 7, 8, 9 -> 10:
> 7: r140:DI=0x1
> 8: r141:DI=r140:DI<<0x26
> REG_DEAD r140:DI
> REG_EQUAL 0x40
> 9:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107489
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106602
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Trying 7, 8, 9 -> 10:
7: r140:DI=0x1
8: r141:DI=r140:DI<<0x26
REG_DEAD r140:DI
REG_EQUAL 0x40
9: r139:DI=r141:DI-0x40
REG_DEAD r141:DI
REG_EQUAL 0x3fffc0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106602
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
But insns 6, 7 and 8 aren't important here. We have a REG_EQUAL on insn 9
which indicates that (reg:DI 77) has the value 0xffc0. So I would
have expected combine to substitute that into the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106602
--- Comment #11 from Vineet Gupta ---
This definitely seems worth pursuing:
For bitmanip, following four insn seq matches
Trying 7, 8, 6 -> 9:
7: r78:DI=0x40
8: r77:DI=r78:DI-0x40
REG_EQUAL 0x3fffc0
6:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85889
--- Comment #5 from Ville Voutilainen ---
And the papers that changed this are
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1091r3.html and
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1381r1.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #8 from Rama Malladi ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #7)
> The revert results in about 0.5% loss on Neoverse N1, so it looks like the
> reassociation pass is still splitting FMAs into separate MUL and ADD (which
> is bad for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101430
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100822
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85889
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from Ville
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92851
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||c++-lambda, rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89995
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87377
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-01
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84471
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106602
--- Comment #10 from Vineet Gupta ---
At expand time, RV backend was NOT creating REQ_EQUAL note for 1 << 38
(insn 8 7 9 2 (set (reg:DI 79)
(ashift:DI (reg:DI 78)
(const_int 38 [0x26]))) "../../../shifter.c":10:40 -1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107504
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The code that creates the COMPONENT_REF is the call to
finish_non_static_data_member around decl.cc:9186 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107504
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Component|debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107504
Bug ID: 107504
Summary: Debugger jumps back to structured binding declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107437
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect this is the same as PR 105518.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105518
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 53819
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53819=edit
full testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107502
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> > I filed PR 107503 with the reduced testcase for the test2 case (after having
> > fixed the return issue).
>
> sorry
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107502
--- Comment #4 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> I filed PR 107503 with the reduced testcase for the test2 case (after having
> fixed the return issue).
sorry about that. it should be vector case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107498
--- Comment #7 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 53818
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53818=edit
Pre-processed source of unmodified mdb.c (gzip-compressed)
Here's the preprocessed source for mdb.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107498
--- Comment #6 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #5)
> Note that the fields are marked volatile in the source:
>
> union {
> struct {
>volatile indx_t pb_lower;
>volatile indx_t pb_upper;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107497
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107444
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Regarding ABI questions, I've inquired on the ML:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-November/058410.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107497
--- Comment #10 from niXman ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #7)
> (In reply to niXman from comment #6)
> > just now faced with the bug as well on x86_64-w64-mingw32 target.
>
> Does the committed patch not fix it?
fixed! thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107444
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107488
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-01
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107444
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It appears that there is also confusion about the procedure decl.
This is demonstrated by:
program p
call s()
call s('') ! Actual argument is too short, reject?
call s('a')
call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106602
--- Comment #9 from Vineet Gupta ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #7)
> There's some code in combine that's supposed to take advantage of REG_EQUAL
> notes which is supposed to help with this kind of scenario. Digging into
> that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107498
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-01
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107468
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Palka ---
Might be good to let upstream know about these issues
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106602
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105416
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-01
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106602
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106602
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107503
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Real testcase:
```
struct f
{
int *a;
};
int *g();
struct f h()
{
return {g()};
}
```
Sorry I forgot the definition of f before. it was a copy and paste mistake.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107502
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I filed PR 107503 with the reduced testcase for the test2 case (after having
fixed the return issue).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107503
Bug ID: 107503
Summary: tail call missed with struct wrapper
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107502
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107502
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 53817
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53817=edit
testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107502
Bug ID: 107502
Summary: GCC fails to detect
foo(first_const,last)-first_const+first pattern
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107497
--- Comment #9 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The patch works for powerpc64. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107501
Bug ID: 107501
Summary: Aliasing warning not working properly in certain
situations
Product: gcc
Version: og11 (devel/omp/gcc-11)
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107497
--- Comment #8 from niXman ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #7)
> (In reply to niXman from comment #6)
> > just now faced with the bug as well on x86_64-w64-mingw32 target.
>
> Does the committed patch not fix it?
checking...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107497
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to niXman from comment #6)
> just now faced with the bug as well on x86_64-w64-mingw32 target.
Does the committed patch not fix it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107497
--- Comment #6 from niXman ---
just now faced with the bug as well on x86_64-w64-mingw32 target.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107490
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107490
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bdf0018519c39931fdcc7aeffe9e87ba756894d7
commit r13-3598-gbdf0018519c39931fdcc7aeffe9e87ba756894d7
Author: Aldy Hernandez
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89653
--- Comment #11 from Moritz Kreutzer ---
I am currently out of the office, with limited to no email access. I will be
returning on November 28. For urgent questions regarding ARM64 support please
contact Julian Hornich, for GPGPU-related issues
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107497
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:82b0345f6137b112728590d7c010dcd2cef08514
commit r13-3597-g82b0345f6137b112728590d7c010dcd2cef08514
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107489
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=107495
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107500
Bug ID: 107500
Summary: Useless atexit entry for ~constant_init in
eh_globals.cc
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107497
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amacleod at redhat dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107499
Bug ID: 107499
Summary: 433.milc regressed by 6-8% on zen3 at -O2 -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107498
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am suspecting the sub-allocator mdb_page_alloc is not doing the alignment
correctly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107498
--- Comment #3 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 53814
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53814=edit
Pre-processed source of mdb.c (gzip-compressed)
Source code file in OpenLDAP git tree is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107497
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107498
--- Comment #2 from Jessica Clarke ---
#define mp_lowermp_pb.pb.pb_lower
#define mp_uppermp_pb.pb.pb_upper
#define mp_pagesmp_pb.pb_pages
union {
struct {
indx_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107497
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Because of past issues I always use contrib/download_prerequisites
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107498
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you attach the preprocessed source for the file which is failing?
And give the exact commands you used to compile it?
Note this could still be a bug in the sources of openldap where the alignment
of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107497
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-01
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107498
Bug ID: 107498
Summary: Wrong optimization leads to unaligned access when
compiling OpenLDAP
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
URL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107492
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107497
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107496
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
--- Comment #34 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 53813
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53813=edit
A patch to handle if (_5 < 0)
A patch to extend optimization for
_1 = __atomic_fetch_or_4 (ptr_6, 0x8000, _3);
_5 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107497
Bug ID: 107497
Summary: [13 regression] ICE during bootstrap after
r13-3595-g7b1cdca6d6d594
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107496
Bug ID: 107496
Summary: [Feature request] Conditional attributes
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107490
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107488
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90706
--- Comment #13 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 53812
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53812=edit
Test case with 32-bit integer.
This problem is still present in current master (future v13) and also occurs
with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107490
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107490
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 53811
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53811=edit
testcase, -Os -fno-trapping-math
I changed the testcase so -fsingle-precision-constant is no longer needed; just
add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107490
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107491
--- Comment #3 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
The stack size on a system that does not support -fsplit-stack is set by
StackMin in libgo/runtime/stack.c. There is currently no way to override the
default value of 4MB, but we could probably add one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107492
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107493
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107493
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.1.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107078
--- Comment #12 from Tomasz Kłoczko ---
Any update?樂
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107494
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Component|web
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107495
--- Comment #1 from Giuseppe D'Angelo ---
Variation of the above:
struct Test {
template
operator int *() const;
};
Test t;
delete t;
also fails:
: In function 'int main()':
:32:12: error: default type conversion cannot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107495
Bug ID: 107495
Summary: GCC does not consider the right contextual implicit
conversions
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107456
--- Comment #4 from Thiago Macieira ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #3)
> With the Remote Atomic Operations (RAO) of AAND, AOR and AXOR, we can do
> something.
Correcting myself: the RAO instructions don't give us the result back
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106472
--- Comment #23 from matoro ---
Created attachment 53810
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53810=edit
build log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106472
--- Comment #22 from matoro ---
This is still a problem on the gcc-12 branch, at least as of 20221008.
Attaching a complete log from a -j1 build.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107468
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107494
Bug ID: 107494
Summary: -ffinite-loops is not enable by default
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: web
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #7 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Rama Malladi from comment #5)
> So, looks like we aren't impacted much with this commit revert.
>
> I haven't yet tried fp_reassoc_width. Will try shortly.
The revert results in about 0.5% loss on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87832
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexander Monakov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5cee5f94000ee5eabce9b223c44c7923c1c69f61
commit r13-3589-g5cee5f94000ee5eabce9b223c44c7923c1c69f61
Author: Alexander Monakov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107493
Bug ID: 107493
Summary: Wrong code at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107492
Bug ID: 107492
Summary: Unhelpful -Wignored-qualifiers warning in template
specialization
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107491
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Kulik ---
That's what I thought, but I am not sure whether there is supposed to be a
different mechanism on other platforms or whether the 4MB stack cap per thread
is the maximum I can get on non Linux platform.
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
