/sparc.c (scan_record_type): Take into account subfields
to compute the PACKED_P predicate.
(function_arg_record_value): Minor tweaks.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/sparc/20160104-1.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/config/sparc/sparc.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69072
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
/sparc.h (FUNCTION_ARG_REGNO_P): Return true in 64-bit
mode for %f0-%f31 only if TARGET_FPU.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/sparc/20160104-2.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/config/sparc/sparc.h
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69100
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69133
Bug ID: 69133
Summary: LTO segfault in lto_get_decl_mapping() on
483.xalancbmk with -flto-partitions=none
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69133
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69124
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69132
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59155
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 37216
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37216&action=edit
proposed patch
this patch bootstraps cleanly and passes regression tests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69134
Bug ID: 69134
Summary: building a mips-cross compiler with in-tree mpfr-2.4.2
fails
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63669
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69132
--- Comment #2 from Wang Xuancong ---
I assume rcp(b)=1/b, so a/b=a*(1/b)=a*rcp(b).
There is no longer a need to do the Newton-Rhapson method.
And of course, computing [ a * ((rcp(b) + rcp(b)) - (b * rcp(b) * rcp (b)))] is
slower than computing [
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69119
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69132
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Wang Xuancong from comment #2)
> I assume rcp(b)=1/b, so a/b=a*(1/b)=a*rcp(b).
That assumption is wrong. The VRCPPS instruction does not compute reciprocal
of the operand, but just an approxima
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69135
Bug ID: 69135
Summary: [5/6][ARM] instruction cannot be conditional --
`vcvtpne.s32.f32 s0,s0'
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69034
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 37217
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37217&action=edit
reduced testcase
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #1)
> Hi,
>
> I don't see any test case.
Hello Bernd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69077
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69083
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69030
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69097
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69099
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69099
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69119
--- Comment #5 from PeteVine ---
Wait, what about #1?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69133
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu|
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68908
--- Comment #16 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Jan 4 12:27:08 2016
New Revision: 232052
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232052&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/68908
* c-typeck.c (build_atomic_assign): Improve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68908
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69083
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69132
Wang Xuancong changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69034
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #2)
> Created attachment 37217 [details]
> reduced testcase
>
> (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #1)
> > Hi,
> >
> > I don't see any test case.
>
> Hello Ber
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69119
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to PeteVine from comment #5)
> Wait, what about #1?
Sorry, I hadn't spotted that there were two issues in the one report. Please
create separate bug reports for each issue - it's much easier to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69135
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69136
Bug ID: 69136
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE in
lto_symtab_prevailing_virtual_decl, at
lto/lto-symtab.c:991
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69104
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69104
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69044
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69060
Sławomir changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slawomir.karol.domagala@gma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69119
--- Comment #7 from PeteVine ---
That's what normally do; I simply wasn't sure if these were gcc bugs or not. I
take it the jemalloc one can be closed on github then?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67710
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
[...]
> Works For Me(™) on 10.10 with XC7.2 and 10.8.5 with XC5.1.1
Same for me on 10.11.3 Beta with XC 7.2 and 10.7 with XC 4.3.2.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69136
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Started with r231671.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69104
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|UNCONFIRMED
Assignee|mpolacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66848
--- Comment #27 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #25 from Jack Howarth ---
[...]
> Did you remember to install the patched build before attempting to run the
> libjava test suite? System Integrity Protection on 10.11 wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69104
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
And we warn, with -Wsystem-headers...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68911
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For the case concerned:
:
e_15 = e_1 + 1;
:
# e_1 = PHI
if (e_1 <= 93)
goto ;
else
goto ;
Loop niter gives:
Analyzing # of iterations of loop 2
exit condition [e_8, + , 1]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69124
--- Comment #3 from Sebastian Andrzej Siewior ---
gcc -v
Target: arm-linux-gnueabihf
Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-pkgversion='Debian 5.3.1-4'
--with-bugurl=file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-5/README.Bugs
--enable-languages=c,ada,c++,java,g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69124
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Does -fno-strict-aliasing help?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69124
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson ---
The OP's compiler has --with-mode=thumb! If I compile with
-mtune=generic-armv7-a -mthumb then I see the following errors from the test
case:
12 0xc0b165f1 != 0xdf5e0cae
13 0x8b329fe4 != 0x8b329fe3
19 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69137
Bug ID: 69137
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE in odr_type_p, at ipa-utils.h:257
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69137
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69097
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69097
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69038
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
(insn 1237 1236 1238 9 (set (reg:DF 32 %f0)
(float:DF (reg:SI 2027 [ MEM[base: in_140, index: _139, offset: 0B]+-3
]))) pr69038.C:647 155 {floatsidf2}
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:SI 2027 [ MEM[base:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69119
--- Comment #8 from PeteVine ---
There's going to be question #3 now that I've successfully built rustc on arm
using -flto.
The rust compiler passes all tests but an example binary (bfc) segfaults:
(gdb) bt
#0 0x7f642784 in thread_rng::h22bece
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69081
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69138
Bug ID: 69138
Summary: Woverflow not triggered for constexpr within class
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69097
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 37219
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37219&action=edit
gcc6-pr69097.patch
Untested WIP patch. Looking for better name of the new function and better
location. Furth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69123
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69107
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 37220
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37220&action=edit
reduced test-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60304
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2014-10-06 00:00:00 |2016-1-4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66848
--- Comment #28 from Jack Howarth ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #27)
> > --- Comment #25 from Jack Howarth ---
> [...]
> > Did you remember to install the patched build before attempting to run the
> > libjava test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69104
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66848
--- Comment #29 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jack Howarth from comment #28)
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #27)
> > > --- Comment #25 from Jack Howarth ---
> Iain suggested that the required changes for supportin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69107
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Summary|def doe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69107
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6 Regression] def does not |[6 Regression] def does not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69109
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Summary|missing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55936
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regression] Missed |[4.9/5 Regression] Missed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66848
--- Comment #30 from Jack Howarth ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #29)
> (In reply to Jack Howarth from comment #28)
> > (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #27)
> > > > --- Comment #25 from Jack Howarth ---
>
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68542
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Yuri Rumyantsev from comment #3)
> I enhanced a patch for masked stores movement by guard on zero mask - move
> all possible producers for stored value and performance degradation
> disappeared.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Pinski ---
Any progress on the patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68991
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com
--- Comment #9 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68991
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
But why should the *mov_internal use Bm or vector_operand? It can/should
handle both aligned and unaligned memory operands.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69104
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch documenting -Winvalid-memory-model posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg00111.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68714
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> I'd add this regressed with r229128, and indeed before that change reassoc
> has been able to optimize the comparisons, but now it is not. So, either we
> defer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Last reconfirmed|2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68991
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> But why should the *mov_internal use Bm or vector_operand? It
> can/should handle both aligned and unaligned memory operands.
Only for historical reason.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68991
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> With Bm constraint on SSE *mov_internal, curr_insn_transform in
> lra-constraints.c generates an extra
>
> (insn 354 353 323 8 (set (reg:V4SF 192)
> (reg:V4SF 202 [
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54525
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55936
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5 Regression] Missed |[4.9/5/6 Regression] Missed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68629
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69139
Bug ID: 69139
Summary: [4.9/5/6 Regression] deduction failure with trailing
return type in function template argument
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54013
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the loop needs an alignment potion otherwise there could be undefined
behavior if 45 is passed the tab array bounds and the one of the elements are
greater than x.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69140
Bug ID: 69140
Summary: [5.3 regression] Stack alignment + O1 breaks on x86_64
[introduced by r230176 ]
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69141
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69141
Bug ID: 69141
Summary: [6 Regression] -O2 -fdump-tree-fre ICEs
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69140
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67153
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Pinski ---
bitset<> version
real0m1.073s
user0m1.052s
sys 0m0.021s
unsigned int
real0m0.903s
user0m0.883s
sys 0m0.019s
bitset with container adapter:
real0m1.519s
user0m1.499s
sys
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67153
--- Comment #20 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #19)
> bitset<> version
> real0m1.073s
> user0m1.052s
> sys 0m0.021s
>
> unsigned int
> real0m0.903s
> user0m0.883s
> sys 0m0.019s
>
> bitset
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69140
--- Comment #2 from Justas L ---
Created attachment 37221
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37221&action=edit
testcase
This testcase throws the error when compiled with:
gcc -c -O2 -mincoming-stack-boundary=3 crypt_md4.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69140
--- Comment #3 from Justas L ---
Created attachment 37222
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37222&action=edit
testcase2
The previous testcase fails only with -O2 or higher; this one fails with -O1:
gcc -c -O1 -mincoming-stack
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69142
Bug ID: 69142
Summary: missing documentation for s/390 zvector builtin
features
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69122
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69140
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68361
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69077
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66970
Andy Lutomirski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luto at mit dot edu
--- Comment #2 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69143
Bug ID: 69143
Summary: PowerPC64: aggregate results are badly handled
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68991
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> > With Bm constraint on SSE *mov_internal, curr_insn_transform in
> > lra-constraints.c generates an extra
> >
> > (insn 354 353 32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67781
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Yes, sorry. I had finished bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and regression
testsuite on both that and arm-none-eabi but I wanted to do a bootstrap on a
big endian system. I then got caught up by holidays.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68991
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13)
> > LRA is OK when Bm is properly defined as
> >
> > (define_memory_constraint "Bm"
> > "@internal Vector memory operand."
> > (match_operand 0 "vector_memory_operand")
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69140
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69140
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.4 |---
Summary|[5/6 regression]
100 matches
Mail list logo
