https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106414
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106315
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83782
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
The problem is that calling an IFUNC class member function via a member
function
pointer needs PLT in 32-bit mode since the IFUNC function pointer points to its
PLT entry. But we don't want to require PLT for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106303
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 53326
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53326=edit
Something like this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106303
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
The original TImode STV pass only converts load and store. When other
operations were added, timode_remove_non_convertible_regs no longer works
correctly. After an instruction is removed from the candidate list,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81708
--- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #15)
> Uroš,
>
> stack-prot-sym.c fails on ia32 with PIC/PIE: the address/value of my_guard
> is loaded from the GOT, instead of appearing as %gs:my_guard.
>
When
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83782
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #8)
> I'm running into some problems that are related with this PR.
>
> First off, on i686-linux-gnu with --enable-default-pie, attr-ifunc-3.c fails
> to link with e.g.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106331
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
Breakpoint 6, expand_builtin_memset_args (dest=0x77b6f1a0,
val=0x77f86978, len=0x77f86960, target=0x77da7400, mode=E_VOIDmode,
orig_exp=0x77da9d38) at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106331
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
This is a latent bug. GCC 11 RTL expander generates:
(insn 21 20 22 (set (mem/c:TI (reg:DI 92 [ D.3947 ]) [0 MEM [(void
*)]+0 S16 A128])
(const_wide_int 0x20202020202020202020202020202020)) "x.f90":3:6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106331
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
The memory alignment passed to __builtin_memset shouldn't be 16 bytes in
this case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105960
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85620
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 53299
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53299=edit
A patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58245
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58245
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 53294
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53294=edit
A patch
Something like this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106288
Bug ID: 106288
Summary: stack protector fails to check stack canary for
noreturn function
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106113
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-06-30
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106022
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #53186|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106022
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #13)
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2022, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106022
> >
> > --- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106022
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> > > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6)
> > > > Created attachment 53169
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106060
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 53196
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53196=edit
A patch
This generates:
:
0: b8 7b 00 00 00 mov$0x7b,%eax
5: c5 f9 6e c0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106022
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #53171|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106022
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6)
> > Created attachment 53169 [details]
> > A patch
> >
> > This patch multiplies the vector store cost by the number of scalar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106022
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 53171
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53171=edit
The v2 patch
Handle vector store.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106022
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 53169
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53169=edit
A patch
This patch multiplies the vector store cost by the number of scalar elements in
a word to properly compare scalar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106022
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
SLP thinks that it needs 4 stores to store 4 bytes of integer constant.
But it takes only 1 4-byte store.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106022
Bug ID: 106022
Summary: [12/13 Regression] Enable vectorizer generates extra
load
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106008
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|12.0|11.2.1
Summary|[12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95821
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 53157
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53157=edit
A patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106008
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106008
Bug ID: 106008
Summary: [12 Regression] warning: ‘(((char *)loadcmds.113_68 +
_933 + 16))[329406144173384849].mapend’ may be used
uninitialized [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103798
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 53154
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53154=edit
A patch
Like this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105992
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #1)
> I'm wondering would targetm.overlap_op_by_pieces_p helps here.
The code is generated by targetm.overlap_op_by_pieces_p. It compares
4 byte at a time with branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105992
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #1)
> I'm wondering would targetm.overlap_op_by_pieces_p helps here.
It is related to PR 103798.
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=105970
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1)
> Probably something like:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
> index 3d189e124e4..f158cc3aaea 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105960
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105960
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
This is caused by r12-5771.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105638
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105920
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105923
Bug ID: 105923
Summary: unsupported return type ‘complex double’ for simd
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105920
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-06-10
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105920
Bug ID: 105920
Summary: __builtin_cpu_supports ("f16c") should check AVX
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105877
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
"strip -g" removed .gnu.debuglto_.debug_info sections. Should LTO remove the
references of stripped debug info? Or should "strip -g" keep LTO debug info?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61810
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 53008
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53008=edit
A patch for pr104441-1a.c
Does it help?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105638
Bug ID: 105638
Summary: Redundant stores aren't removed by DSE
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105073
Bug 105073 depends on bug 102583, which changed state.
Bug 102583 Summary: [x86] Failure to optimize 32-byte integer vector conversion
to 16-byte float vector properly when converting upper part with -mavx2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102583
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105472
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105472
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105472
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 52935
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52935=edit
A patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105509
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
_Float16 was added for AVX512FP16 as a C++ extention. The fN suffixes were
added by
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=c65699efcce48d68ef57ab3ce7fc5420fac5cbf9
which has
C++ note: no support for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105472
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
>
> The usual way throughout the code base is to guard .note.GNU-stack with
> __ELF__ && __linux__ to avoid all this.
Isn't checking __linux__ sufficient?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105433
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105433
Bug ID: 105433
Summary: FAIL:
gcc.target/i386/iamcu/test_3_element_struct_and_unions
.c
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54412
--- Comment #40 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #37)
> > If the Windows ABI doesn't align stack or not as much as gcc assumes, then a
> > fix would ensure only automatic vars on Windows are accessed always using
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105288
Bug ID: 105288
Summary: AVX/AVX512 casts should the "v" constraint
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105068
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.3
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105052
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105055
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105058
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105058
Bug ID: 105058
Summary: Incorrect register constraint in KL patterns
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105055
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|hjl at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail dot
com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105052
Bug ID: 105052
Summary: Incorrect constraint on SSSE3 split patterns with MMX
operands
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105032
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104781
Bug 104781 depends on bug 104890, which changed state.
Bug 104890 Summary: [11 Regression] doesn't work with
__attribute__((target ("general-regs-only"))) and -march=i686
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104890
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104890
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105000
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105000
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104998
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105000
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
#define OPTION_MASK_ISA2_AVX5124FMAPS (HOST_WIDE_INT_1U << 3)
#define OPTION_MASK_ISA2_AVX5124VNNIW (HOST_WIDE_INT_1U << 4)
#define OPTION_MASK_ISA2_AVX512BF16 (HOST_WIDE_INT_1U << 5)
#define
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105000
Bug ID: 105000
Summary: __attribute__((target("no-sse"))) doesn't disable
AVX/SSE ISAs in ix86_isa_flags2
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104998
Bug ID: 104998
Summary: Incorrect __cpuid usage
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104890
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu ---
[hjl@gnu-skx-1 gcc]$ ./xgcc -B./ -O2 -m32 /tmp/x.c -S -march=sapphirerapids
-mshstk
In file included from ./include/x86gprintrin.h:45,
from /tmp/x.c:1:
./include/cetintrin.h: In function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104890
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104982
Bug ID: 104982
Summary: [12 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/bt-5.c by
r12-7687
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104890
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
Fixed for GCC 12 so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99744
--- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Marc Poulhiès from comment #16)
> Hi!
> I'm seeing regressions in pr99744-{1,2,4,5}.c for an i586 target where
> MMX/SSE are not enabled.
Please try
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104890
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52620|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104890
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52619|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104890
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Comment on attachment 52619 [details]
> A patch
>
> This looks wrong, it will fail with the same configuration if people build
> with -msse2.
I have no issues to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104890
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104890
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 52619
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52619=edit
A patch
Please try this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104890
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at redhat dot com
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104816
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52615|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104890
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-03-12
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104816
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 52615
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52615=edit
A patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104816
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104613
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
We can add a sorry since -mfunction-return=thunk isn't supported with
__builtin_eh_return.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104816
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Cooper from comment #4)
> I've worked around this in Xen with:
> https://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=commitdiff;
> h=9d4a44380d273de22d5753883cbf5581795ff24d and
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104816
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104781
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52563|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104781
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> Comment on attachment 52563 [details]
> A patch
>
> >From ba4854c13c4aaa5b50127f23cb09cf05e3eb229d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >From: "H.J. Lu"
> >Date: Fri, 4 Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104781
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-03-04
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104610
Bug 104610 depends on bug 104704, which changed state.
Bug 104704 Summary: [12 Regression] ix86_gen_scratch_sse_rtx doesn't work with
explicit XMM7/XMM15/XMM31 usage
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104704
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104704
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104721
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104704
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 52553
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52553=edit
A patch to always return pseudo register in ix86_gen_scratch_sse_rtx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103393
--- Comment #24 from H.J. Lu ---
Another testcase:
[hjl@gnu-tgl-2 pr103393]$ cat x.c
struct TestData {
float arr[8];
};
void cpy(struct TestData *s1, struct TestData *s2 ) {
for(int i=0; i<16; ++i) {
s1->arr[i] = s2->arr[i];
}
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104704
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
--- pieces-memset-46.s 2022-03-02 06:44:55.845212762 -0800
+++
/export/build/gnu/tools-build/gcc-gitlab-debug/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/pieces-memset-46.s
2022-03-02 06:45:03.313188978 -0800
@@ -8,9 +8,11 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103393
--- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu ---
A patch is posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-March/591093.html
301 - 400 of 1130 matches
Mail list logo
