https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80388
Bug ID: 80388
Summary: ICE in output_constructor_regular_field, at
varasm.c:4986
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80385
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.5
Summary|Internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80387
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80385
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80387
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80387
--- Comment #2 from bastien penavayre ---
Created attachment 41172
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41172&action=edit
source precompiled after g++ --save-temps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80387
bastien penavayre changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bastien.penavayre at epitech
dot e
ce file
template using assigned with decltype of constexpr static method "func"
cause g++ to hang with one thread running at 100% non-stop.
Tested first with g++7.0.1 20170410 and confirmed to be the same with
g++-6.0.1.
On older version of g++ the method "func" is not recognized.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80354
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80386
Bug ID: 80386
Summary: UBSAN: false positive - constant folding and
reassosiation before instrumentation
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80385
--- Comment #1 from Jason Koenig ---
Created attachment 41169
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41169&action=edit
main.ii (gzipped)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80385
Bug ID: 80385
Summary: Internal Segmentation Fault
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80098
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77721
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-Wformat-length not uses|-Wformat-truncation not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77696
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Confusing wording for |Confusing wording for
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77831
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|add fixit hints to |add fixit hints to
|-Wf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77799
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|missing -Wformat-length |missing -Wformat-overflow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77671
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|missing -Wformat-length |missing -Wformat-overflow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79062
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-Wformat-length warnings|-Walloca-larger-than and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78913
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Probably misleading error |Probably misleading error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69498
Nicolas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80384
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80305
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69498
--- Comment #10 from Nicolas Koenig ---
Author: koenigni
Date: Mon Apr 10 20:58:21 2017
New Revision: 246826
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246826&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-10 Nicolas Koenig
Paul Thomas
PR f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80176
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80176
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Apr 10 20:49:11 2017
New Revision: 246825
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246825&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/80176
* tree.c (lvalue_kind): For COMPONENT_REF wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80382
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80304
--- Comment #27 from Thomas Koenig ---
The bug is indeed fixed. Thanks a lot for the quick fix!
I have also committed a Fortran test case (just to be sure).
Regards
Thomas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80304
--- Comment #26 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Apr 10 20:40:48 2017
New Revision: 246824
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246824&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-10 Thomas Koenig
PR tree-optimization/80304
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80046
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80384
Bug ID: 80384
Summary: ICE when deducing noexcept in class template partial
specialization
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80046
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Mon Apr 10 20:28:23 2017
New Revision: 246823
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246823&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-10 Janus Weil
PR fortran/80046
* exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70878
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80265
--- Comment #14 from Pedro Alves ---
AFAIK, the "if constexpr()" proposal was sent back for more work [1], seems
premature to support it, while I'd hope that the __builtin_constant_p approach
would allow supporting constexpr char_traits in GCC7 (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80098
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80100
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
simplify-rtx.c:2743 is "HOST_WIDE_INT mask = INTVAL (trueop1) << count;"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80359
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Given how late in stage4 we are, I think rejecting TMR without trying to
rewrite them into a regular MEM_REF is probably the best thing to do.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80265
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse ---
If we need the "if constexpr()" that is proposed for C++20, we might as well
implement that (and enable it in system headers for C++17 if that's useful), it
seems better than abusing __builtin_constant_p, whic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80265
--- Comment #12 from Pedro Alves ---
This seems to work equally well (or better):
// true if the whole string is known at compile time.
static inline constexpr bool constant_string(const char *s)
{
while (__builtin_constant_p (*s) && *s)
s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80374
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80374
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Mon Apr 10 19:19:42 2017
New Revision: 246819
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246819&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/80374
* tree-ssa-dom.c (derive_equival
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80383
Bug ID: 80383
Summary: wrong caret location and missing detail in warning:
initializer element is not a constant expression on a
signed overflow
Product: gcc
Vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80108
kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80108
--- Comment #12 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kelvin
Date: Mon Apr 10 19:01:37 2017
New Revision: 246818
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246818&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2017-04-10 Kelvin Nilsen
PR targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80349
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry Babokin ---
PR80348 is fixed, but this still fails.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80367
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
In PR 79804, I have a patch that makes ICE more informative, but the frame reg
problem elimination remains to be solved in LRA.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79356
--- Comment #15 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Apr 10 18:51:42 2017
New Revision: 246816
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246816&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/79356
* gcc.dg/attr-alloc_size-11.c:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80367
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80265
--- Comment #11 from Pedro Alves ---
Ok, so s[2] is not constant, while s[0] is, in that case.
AFAICS, changing constexpr_strlen to this:
constexpr size_t constexpr_strlen(const char* s)
{
const char *p = s;
while (__builtin_constant_p (*p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80099
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79712
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80210
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Confirmed. The define_expand condition is *not* checked?! Possibly by
the pow->sqrt code (yeah I'm guessing here).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80210
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80283
wilco at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80382
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79867
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79867
--- Comment #2 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mrs
Date: Mon Apr 10 17:45:35 2017
New Revision: 246813
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246813&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-10 Daniel Santos
PR testsuite/79867
* li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80382
--- Comment #6 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #5)
> Just creduce. I think it'd be possible to reduce it a bit more, first
> manually and then run creduce again, but it needs a bit of knowledge of C++.
Ok, in that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80382
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #4)
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #0)
> > This testcase (which took ~5 days of reducing) ICEs with -O3 -std=c++11
> > -mtune=power8 -mcpu=power8 -mno-lra:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80354
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The warning does just what it's designed to do: point out the potential
unhandled truncation. If the argument values are such that the truncation
cannot occur then using snprintf is unnecessary and sprintf ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80382
--- Comment #4 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #0)
> This testcase (which took ~5 days of reducing) ICEs with -O3 -std=c++11
> -mtune=power8 -mcpu=power8 -mno-lra:
Did you use creduce or delta or ??? to reduce the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80382
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner ---
I'll have a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80382
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #1)
> You didn't fill in the target. 32/64-bit, little-/big-endian?
64-bit, and I think it ICEs on both BE and LE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80348
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7 Regression] UBSAN: |[6 Regression] UBSAN:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80382
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
You didn't fill in the target. 32/64-bit, little-/big-endian?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80348
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Apr 10 17:18:15 2017
New Revision: 246812
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246812&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/80348
* typeck.c (cp_build_binary_op): Use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80265
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't think it works that well.
Consider:
int
str6 (int a)
{
char s[] = "strabcdefgh";
s[2] = a;
return ce_char_traits::length(s);
}
int
str7 (int a)
{
char s[] = "strabcdefgh";
s[2] = a;
retu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80153
--- Comment #9 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Mon Apr 10 16:54:14 2017
New Revision: 246811
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246811&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/80153
* tree-ssa-loop-ivopt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80153
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Mon Apr 10 16:51:44 2017
New Revision: 246810
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246810&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/80153
* tree-affine.c (aff_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80357
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> (In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #6)
> > That revision enabled -fsched-pressure by default, so it may have been
> > latent with -fsched-pressure before then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80265
--- Comment #9 from Pedro Alves ---
FWIW, I've tried to poke a bit more at this, to try to make it _not_ work, but
couldn't. It seems to always do what we need. These all work/compile too:
constexpr int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80357
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #6)
> That revision enabled -fsched-pressure by default, so it may have been
> latent with -fsched-pressure before then.
No, r243865 does not ICE with -O3 -fsched-press
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80357
--- Comment #7 from Pat Haugen ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #6)
> That revision enabled -fsched-pressure by default, so it may have been
> latent with -fsched-pressure before then.
Yes, this is a latent bug in the "model" sched-pre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60685
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Dave McMordie from comment #6)
> Any sense of a minimal patch to fix this issue?
At a wild guess, I'd say it might be one of r209907 or r216750, which both look
quite involved and probably not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80357
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
That revision enabled -fsched-pressure by default, so it may have been latent
with -fsched-pressure before then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80293
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> That said, the array cases we've seen are somewhat disturbing...
Cases? Can you point me to the other ones, please? What type do they
have?
> maybe we can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80265
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think there was a bug report in the last month or so asking for some builtin
to detect when we're in a constexpr context.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80357
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Started with r243866.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80381
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78881
--- Comment #26 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #25)
--- snip ---
>
> Btw., I happened to notice that this "int * length" (and many more
> instances throughout the file and probably all of libgfortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79522
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80357
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80357
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80293
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #3)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > We have another bugreport that complains about SRA and Martin said he had
> > patches but intended to wait for G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80367
--- Comment #7 from jwjagersma at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 41167
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41167&action=edit
test case
Here is a reduced test case that causes a similar (likely the same?) ICE on
i686-w64-min
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70478
--- Comment #10 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Mon Apr 10 14:58:33 2017
New Revision: 246808
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246808&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-10 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/70478
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80376
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Patch under test would produce the follow errors instead:
wschmidt@pike:~/src$ $GCC_INSTALL/bin/gcc pr80376.c
pr80376.c: In function 'main':
pr80376.c:12:5: error: argument 3 must be a 2-bit unsigned literal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80376
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
It's difficult to completely avoid an ICE, as once we have a nested call with
an invalid value it is not simple to recover with our current design. However,
I will put together a patch that provides better er
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80367
--- Comment #6 from jwjagersma at gmail dot com ---
So "esp" is not a valid register to clobber? I thought it would only make the
compiler use ebp instead to reference stack memory operands. After all
esp-relative operands wouldn't be valid after
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80381
--- Comment #4 from Sven Woop ---
BTW, the AVX-512 version of this "bug" also compiles with ICC and Clang 4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80381
--- Comment #3 from Sven Woop ---
Right, this could be considered a user bug. However, we ran into this as we are
successfully using this code sequence in our code:
#include
#define __forceinline inline __attribute__((always_inline))
struct v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80374
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Testing a fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80294
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80376
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #2 from B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80374
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80057
mpf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80057
--- Comment #4 from mpf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpf
Date: Mon Apr 10 13:44:39 2017
New Revision: 246807
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246807&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Update MIPS -mvirt option description
gcc/
PR target/80057
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80357
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79390
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #21)
> On April 7, 2017 6:57:13 PM GMT+02:00, "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org"
> wrote:
> >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79390
> >
> >--- Comment #20 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80293
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> We have another bugreport that complains about SRA and Martin said he had
> patches but intended to wait for GCC 8.
My patch for PR 78687 unfortunately won't he
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
