https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113005
Lipeng Zhu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lipeng.zhu at intel dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113110
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113110
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jason Liam from comment #3)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
>
> > I suspect this is either a bug or an extension for MSVC.
>
> Are you sure? I mean if you add another template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113110
--- Comment #3 from Jason Liam ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I suspect this is either a bug or an extension for MSVC.
Are you sure? I mean if you add another template parameter `U` to the second
parameter and use it then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113110
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am almost want to say MSVC never implmented DR 214 which addresses this.
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#214
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113110
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
EDG 6.5 also rejects the code:
```
(21): error: more than one instance of overloaded function "compare"
matches the argument list:
function template "int compare(const char (&)[N], const char
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113110
Bug ID: 113110
Summary: GCC rejects call to more specialized const char array
version with string literal
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113091
--- Comment #6 from Feng Xue ---
(In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #5)
> > The issue here is that because the "outer" pattern consumes
> > patt_64 = (int) patt_63 it should have adjusted _2 = (int) _1
> > stmt-to-vectorize
> > as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81438
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2488771b6dc6b05bfdc68dbd6b7bbe0489c8dad0
commit r14-6799-g2488771b6dc6b05bfdc68dbd6b7bbe0489c8dad0
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113109
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #0)
> That
> printf-statement is likely not reached,
Now confirmed. The assembly output for eh6.s is identical (before/after), but
apparently
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113109
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I wonder if this is similar to what I saw years earlier, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30271#c11 . Jeff was worried about
this similar thing when he was reviewing the patch too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113109
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113109
Bug ID: 113109
Summary: [14 Regression] g++ EH tests fail at execution time
for cris-elf after r14-6674-g4759383245ac97
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113031
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113031
--- Comment #6 from Nathaniel Shead ---
Yes, fixed as far as I'm aware.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95298
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d26f589e61a178e898d8b247042b487287ffe121
commit r14-6797-gd26f589e61a178e898d8b247042b487287ffe121
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113105
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, e.g. on x86_64,
unsigned int
f1 (unsigned val)
{
return val / 10 * 16 + val % 10;
}
unsigned int
f2 (unsigned val)
{
return val / 10 * 6 + val;
}
unsigned int
f3 (unsigned val, unsigned a,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113087
--- Comment #12 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to Patrick O'Neill from comment #11)
> (In reply to Patrick O'Neill from comment #10)
> > I've kicked off 2 spec runs (zvl 128 and 256) using r14-6765-g4d9e0f3f211.
> > I'll let you know the results
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106213
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113099
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It's mostly OK to mix code with -frtti and -fno-rtti, but sometimes it bites
you.
The crash with older releases seems like __dynamic_cast should gracefully
handle missing RTTI and just fail, not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112581
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101852
Bug 101852 depends on bug 112951, which changed state.
Bug 112951 Summary: [14 Regression] cond_copysign, cond_len_copysign optab not
documented (added by r14-5285-gf30ecd8050444f)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112951
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112951
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112951
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:df5df10355089c9c92529c222100722cea170877
commit r14-6792-gdf5df10355089c9c92529c222100722cea170877
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112951
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112758
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Here is what I'd propose, but I can't really test it on any
WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS
target.
2023-12-21 Jakub Jelinek
PR rtl-optimization/112758
* combine.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112758
--- Comment #15 from Greg McGary ---
I have a simple patch for this which I will submit soon. The idea is to do
nothing in expand_compound_operation() when the pattern is (sign_extend (mem
...) ).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112951
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84542
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84542
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9a65c8ee659042babdb05ef15fea9910fa8d6e62
commit r14-6790-g9a65c8ee659042babdb05ef15fea9910fa8d6e62
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113087
--- Comment #11 from Patrick O'Neill ---
(In reply to Patrick O'Neill from comment #10)
> I've kicked off 2 spec runs (zvl 128 and 256) using r14-6765-g4d9e0f3f211.
> I'll let you know the results when they finish.
My terminal crashed - so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112470
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 56921
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56921=edit
Simple testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113031
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107906
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70413
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107906
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7226f825db049517b64442a40a6387513febb8f9
commit r14-6789-g7226f825db049517b64442a40a6387513febb8f9
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70413
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7226f825db049517b64442a40a6387513febb8f9
commit r14-6789-g7226f825db049517b64442a40a6387513febb8f9
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113040
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113040
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:135bb9e37167ef70501a888bd3db195b11b37ae3
commit r14-6788-g135bb9e37167ef70501a888bd3db195b11b37ae3
Author: Andre Vieira (lists)
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113054
--- Comment #9 from Filip Kastl ---
Alright. I suppose this change wouldn't be appropriate in stage 3 nor stage 4,
so I'll wait for the next stage 1 and modify sccopy to use a class.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113054
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Filip Kastl from comment #7)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > Note I also don't like how dead_stmts is a static variable either but that
> > would be for another change.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113054
--- Comment #7 from Filip Kastl ---
Thanks for the fix! Will be careful not to trigger ODR with my future patches.
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Note I also don't like how dead_stmts is a static variable either but that
> would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113105
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113105
--- Comment #2 from XChy ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> When it is signed v / a * b + v % a, I think it can introduce UB which
> wasn't there originally.
> E.g. for v = 0, a = INT_MIN and b = 3. So, if it isn't done just for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112941
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 56920
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56920=edit
gcc14-pr112941-thunk.patch
Untested patch for the #c6 ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113105
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
When it is signed v / a * b + v % a, I think it can introduce UB which wasn't
there originally.
E.g. for v = 0, a = INT_MIN and b = 3. So, if it isn't done just for unsigned
types,
parts of it need to be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113105
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113097
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113098
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113108
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-12-21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113108
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113108
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Seems to have started r7-4383.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113108
--- Comment #2 from Kyrylo Bohdanenko ---
Godbolt link (not the original example): https://godbolt.org/z/E1veMxcdx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113108
--- Comment #1 from Kyrylo Bohdanenko ---
Compiled with -std=c++17 -O2 -Wall -Wextra -Wpedantic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113108
Bug ID: 113108
Summary: Internal compiler error when choosing overload for
operator=
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112918
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113106
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1)
> Perhaps related,
>
> --cut here--
> int a;
>
> int foo(void)
> {
> return *(volatile int *) + *(volatile int *)
> }
> --cut here--
>
> compiles with -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113106
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> > BTW: I also checked with clang, and it creates expected code in all cases.
>
> But you don't get
>
>movl%gs:b(%rip), %eax
>addl%eax,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113044
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113044
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2766b83759a02572b7b303aae3d4b54a351f8f96
commit r14-6787-g2766b83759a02572b7b303aae3d4b54a351f8f96
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112918
--- Comment #15 from Vladimir Makarov ---
The patch resulted in 2 new PRs about ICE when building glibc. So I reverted
the patch.
I'll continue work on this PR right after the winter holidays.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113098
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Makarov ---
The patch causing this was reverted.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113097
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Joseph, thank you for reporting this. I've just reverted the patch causing
this.
I'll use this report for work on another version of the patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113069
--- Comment #4 from Filip Kastl ---
Its a statement I forgot to remove. Thanks for the fix!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113102
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 56919
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56919=edit
gcc14-pr113102-2.patch
So far only lightly tested patch for the #c1 issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113102
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113106
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |rtl-optimization
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113106
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
The issue in comment #2 happens in a couple of places when compiling linux
kernel (with named address spaces enabled). However, the issue is not specific
to named AS, I was just more attentive to moves from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113106
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> The situation with address-spaces isn't valid as we need to preserve the
> second load because it's volatile. I think we simply refuse to combine
> volatile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113106
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113107
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-12-21
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86535
--- Comment #38 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #37 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
> Search for this comment in the top-level configure.ac file.
>
> # Disable libgo for some systems where it is known to not work.
> # For
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80755
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-12-21
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113044
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113005
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
BTW, even in non-installed testing there is no OMP_NUM_THREADS cap if one just
uses make check and not -jN. Or when OMP_NUM_THREADS is set in the environment
to some value.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113005
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yeah, perhaps just num_threads(8) to all of those?
Why is there
total_threads = omp_get_max_threads ()
btw, when nothing uses it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113005
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libfortran |testsuite
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113044
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113107
Bug ID: 113107
Summary: miss optimization of an unmerged load operation
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113091
--- Comment #5 from Richard Sandiford ---
> The issue here is that because the "outer" pattern consumes
> patt_64 = (int) patt_63 it should have adjusted _2 = (int) _1
> stmt-to-vectorize
> as being the outer pattern root stmt for all this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113093
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113093
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alex Coplan :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aca1f9d7cab3dc1a374a7dc0ec6f7a8d02d2869a
commit r14-6784-gaca1f9d7cab3dc1a374a7dc0ec6f7a8d02d2869a
Author: Alex Coplan
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113106
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
For reference, the same optimization should be applied with address spaces:
--cut here--
int __seg_gs b;
int bar(void)
{
return *(volatile __seg_gs int *) + b;
}
--cut here--
the above testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113092
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113106
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Perhaps related,
--cut here--
int a;
int foo(void)
{
return *(volatile int *) + *(volatile int *)
}
--cut here--
compiles with -O2 to:
movla(%rip), %eax
movla(%rip), %edx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113106
Bug ID: 113106
Summary: Missing CSE with cast to volatile
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113092
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Worked around for now (till libubsan has proper _BitInt support).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113094
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112948
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113094
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:803d222e533efbc385411d4b5a2d0ec0551b9f16
commit r14-6781-g803d222e533efbc385411d4b5a2d0ec0551b9f16
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112948
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:81dfa84e35659bc8adff945e61b02bc76c4c7f1e
commit r14-6780-g81dfa84e35659bc8adff945e61b02bc76c4c7f1e
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113092
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0e7f5039c52a020c3ed5f18a2b3ee1fb42b78f62
commit r14-6778-g0e7f5039c52a020c3ed5f18a2b3ee1fb42b78f62
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112941
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3d1bdbf64c2ed5be70fbff687b2927e328297b81
commit r14-6777-g3d1bdbf64c2ed5be70fbff687b2927e328297b81
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113104
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 21 Dec 2023, fxue at os dot amperecomputing.com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113104
>
> --- Comment #2 from Feng Xue ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113104
--- Comment #2 from Feng Xue ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> See my proposal on the mailing list to lift the restriction of sticking to a
> single vector size, I think this is another example showing this. If you
> use BB
*To be removed from our mailing list, please respond to this message with
UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line*
--
**
11th INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ON DEEP LEARNING
(and the Future of Artificial Intelligence)
DeepLearn 2024
Porto – Maia,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113104
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112534
--- Comment #10 from Arsen Arsenović ---
Created attachment 56915
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56915=edit
[PATCH] toplevel: don't override gettext-runtime/configure-discovered build
args
here's a preliminary patch,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113099
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI, documentation
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113098
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
