http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59622
--- Comment #12 from David Kredba ---
Created attachment 31546
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31546&action=edit
After patch ICE generating reduced preprocessed source file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59379
--- Comment #14 from Igor Zamyatin ---
I meant new_coef from aff_combination_scale
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58718
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56066
Solomon Gibbs changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59622
--- Comment #11 from David Kredba ---
Without -m32 it not ICEs after patch applied.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59622
--- Comment #10 from David Kredba ---
Hello Jakub,
I tried your patch.
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/llvm-3.3-r2/work/llvm-3.3.src/lib/Transforms/Scalar/SimplifyLibCalls.cpp:
In member function ‘llvm::Value*
{anonymous}::LibCallOptimization::Optimiz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56066
Solomon Gibbs changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29236|0 |1
is obsolete|
or[] (int);
struct B
{
int _M_finish;
};
B _M_impl;
};
void
fn2 (A & p1)
{
unsigned b = p1.m_fn2 ();
fn1i (b - 1 - p1[p1.m_fn2 () - 1]);
}
gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 4.8.3 20131230 (prerelease)
Configured for x86_64.
gcc -c t.ii -m32 -fno-tree-vrp -mfpmath=sse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58158
--- Comment #11 from Tom Li ---
My Gentoo system is nearly broken because of this bug :(
I'm going to report it to Loongson's mailing list.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59646
Bug ID: 59646
Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE with volatile in
initializer list
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59645
Bug ID: 59645
Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE with covariant return and
volatile
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59023
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47226
Dennis Brentjes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d.brentjes at gmail dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59644
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Weird, I thought the kernel is compiled even with -mno-sse, so there shouldn't
be AVX used and thus no need for realignment anywhere. What arch is that?
i?86 or x86_64? Can you bisect which *.o file matters
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59644
Bug ID: 59644
Summary: [4.9 Regression] r206243 miscompiles Linux kernel
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59642
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
I've noticed the same in other PRs, normally we manage to track the actual
value of *p, but we don't manage that when *p was written by __builtin_mem*,
which should still be doable:
int f(int*p){
__builtin_mem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59641
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58525
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59643
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 31543
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31543&action=edit
gcc49-pr59643.patch
Completely untested patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59643
Bug ID: 59643
Summary: Predictive commoning unnecessarily punts on scimark2
SOR
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58583
--- Comment #2 from Volker Reichelt ---
The second testcase is now also wrongly accepted, due to the fix for PR57887.
However, the following testcase still crashes with almost the same stacktrace:
===
template struct A
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 58613, which changed state.
Bug 58613 Summary: [4.9 Regression] [c++1y] ICE with invalid lambda capture
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58613
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58613
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59349
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59622
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
My comment was about warning at a time we fold to unreachable. Higher level
warning a-la clang is of course good idea.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59023
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The following patch is more reasonable, I think:
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/resolve.c(revision 206252)
+++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59622
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59633
--- Comment #2 from Volker Reichelt ---
> What makes you think the code is valid? From the doc, I think this should be
> rejected (with a proper error message).
Well, because the C-frontend compiles it, the C++-frontend used to compile it
and eve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59379
--- Comment #13 from Igor Zamyatin ---
I meant that with 3-stage gcc of r204980 testcase from the attachment was
compiled and ran successfully, i.e. no infinite loop.
Currently debugging shows that routine mul_double_wide_with_sign (which is
actu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
I am testing:
Index: combine-stack-adj.c
===
--- combine-stack-adj.c (revision 206233)
+++ combine-stack-adj.c (working copy)
@@ -567,6 +568,7 @@ c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59642
Bug ID: 59642
Summary: Performance regression (4.7/4.8) with
-ftree-loop-distribute-patterns
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26493
--- Comment #12 from Kristis Makris ---
Please revise and resubmit. I can't tell clearly why whatever it is you are
asking is important.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK, sched2 reorders:
(insn 762 761 765 50 (set (mem/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 7 sp)
(const_int 112 [0x70])) [17 MEM[(struct *)&bs + 8B]+0 S4 A64])
(const_int 8 [0x8])) ../../../../libgo/go
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59641
Bug ID: 59641
Summary: ICE with invalid expression in vector arithmetic
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59023
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I had a closer look at what actually changes with the patch in comment 7, and
found out that the crucial part is that the patch does not set the 'ns' member
of the gsymbol. This observation leads to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59634
--- Comment #2 from ytrezq at myopera dot com ---
Ok. So, does it worth to make a change to the documentation?
An another possibility it to rename the parameter in this way:
l1-cache-size-->l1-data-cache-size
l2-cache-size-->l2-da
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59023
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31542
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31542&action=edit
patch
Here is a patch which removes the ICE, although I don't actually understand why
(maybe someone el
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41090
--- Comment #24 from Mike Stump ---
Thanks for the fix and the update guys.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41090
--- Comment #23 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mrs
Date: Mon Dec 30 19:34:53 2013
New Revision: 206252
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206252&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/41090
* g++.dg/ext/label13.C: Update to not expect fa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26493
--- Comment #11 from Kristis Makris ---
I won't see, open or read your email.
I won't even know you emailed me.
If there's something you want me to do you have to use this:
https://aimelia.com/res?id=wnVviP0qSkNXW1mtSIOKtdq5
This is an automat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59634
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.8.2/gcc/Optimize-Options.html#index-param-935
l1-cache-line-size
The size of cache line in L1 cache, in bytes.
l1-cache-size
The size of L1 cache, in kilobytes.
l2-cache-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26493
--- Comment #10 from Kristis Makris ---
I won't see, open or read your email.
I won't even know you emailed me.
If there's something you want me to do you have to use this:
https://aimelia.com/res?id=BJ6WQBHg1LEYvkwLH6Hn02hK
This is an automat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59640
Bug ID: 59640
Summary: templated conversion pointer type comparison causes
segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26493
--- Comment #9 from Kristis Makris ---
I won't see, open or read your email.
I won't even know you emailed me.
If there's something you want me to do you have to use this:
https://aimelia.com/res?id=CZPr9mKgQTQfD3dYqy00b5qg
This is an automate
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26493
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||a...@cloudius-systems.com
--- Comment #8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59639
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59639
--- Comment #2 from Avi Kivity ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> The option you want is -freorder-blocks-and-partition but it only does
> something when there are real profiling info (aka
> -fprofile-generate/-fprofile-use).
No.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59631
--- Comment #2 from Volker Reichelt ---
The patch in comment #1 was meant for PR 59613.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59639
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #1 from Andr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59623
Morten Kristiansen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59639
Bug ID: 59639
Summary: Code in a cold basic block is not pushed to
.text.unlikely
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59623
--- Comment #1 from Morten Kristiansen ---
Not a bug in GCC, after all. Caused by some mixup of cygwin dll's. Closing bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59638
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59638
Bug ID: 59638
Summary: [c++1y] ICE with pointer to function that has auto as
parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59615
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> They are modelled in the .md files now, we just don't have general purpose
> builtins for this yet in GCC 4.9, it is only used for -fsanitize=undefined
> right now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59023
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #5)
> In this range are three committs for PR 48858, which might be to blame here:
> r199118, r199119, r199120. At first sight I suspect the middle one could be
> the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59615
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> > Anyway, you definitely don't want
> > to use inline asm in this case, if there is some code GCC doesn't optimize
> >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59637
Bug ID: 59637
Summary: [c++11] ICE with decltype and destructor call in
template
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59615
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Anyway, you definitely don't want
> to use inline asm in this case, if there is some code GCC doesn't optimize
> as good as you'd like to, just report that.
One com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59023
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59613
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52856
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59613
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pab at pabigot dot com
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59631
--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton ---
Author: nickc
Date: Mon Dec 30 17:37:08 2013
New Revision: 206250
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206250&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/59631
* stor-layout.c (get_mode_bounds): Use GET_MODE_PRECI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59636
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59636
Bug ID: 59636
Summary: [c++1y] ICE with missing template parameter in lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58998
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Mon Dec 30 17:33:21 2013
New Revision: 206249
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206249&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-30 Janus Weil
PR fortran/58998
* resolve.c (re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59635
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59635
Bug ID: 59635
Summary: [c++1y] ICE with auto and ... as lambda parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59626
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59634
Bug ID: 59634
Summary: Documentation (info/man page): lack of information for
cache size parameters (--param)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59591
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59591
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 30 17:05:10 2013
New Revision: 206248
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206248&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/59591
* tree-vect-stmts.c (vectorizable_mask_lo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59633
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
What makes you think the code is valid? From the doc, I think this should be
rejected (with a proper error message).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59633
Bug ID: 59633
Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE with
__attribute((vector_size(...))) for enum
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59632
Bug ID: 59632
Summary: ICE with erroneous loop condition after #pragma GCC
ivdep
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59631
Bug ID: 59631
Summary: ICE using _Cilk_spawn without -fcilkplus
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
First block is:
(insn:TI 551 2434 552 38 (set (mem/f/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 7 sp)
(const_int 104 [0x68])) [17 MEM[(struct *)&bs]+0 S4 A64])
(reg/f:SI 6 bp [orig:159 bs ] [159]))
../../
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59630
Bug ID: 59630
Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE converting the return
type of a builtin function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59629
Bug ID: 59629
Summary: [4.9 Regression] [c++11] ICE with invalid use of auto
in lambda function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59628
Bug ID: 59628
Summary: ICE with invalid OpenMP "declare reduction" clause
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59627
Bug ID: 59627
Summary: ICE with OpenMP "declare reduction" and -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59591
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #31525|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59544
Bingfeng Mei changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 59544, which changed state.
Bug 59544 Summary: Vectorizing store with negative step
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59544
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59622
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59622
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59622
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59501
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59626
Bug ID: 59626
Summary: [4.9 lto] /usr/include/bits/unistd.h:173:1: error:
inlining failed in call to always_inline 'readlinkat':
recursive inlining
Product: gcc
Ve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59501
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 30 08:53:10 2013
New Revision: 206243
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206243&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/59501
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_save_reg): Don't return t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59605
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 30 08:48:25 2013
New Revision: 206242
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206242&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/59605
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_set_or_movmem): Cr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #98 from David Kredba ---
It was not commited yet, or was it please?
I still cannot compile scipy with -flto by trunk gcc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59625
Bug ID: 59625
Summary: asm goto and TARGET_FOUR_JUMP_LIMIT
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
95 matches
Mail list logo
