https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88984
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 23 14:39:43 2019
New Revision: 268187
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268187&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/88984
* cp-gimplify.c (genericize_switch_stmt): Mov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45507|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
--- Comment #42 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 45507
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45507&action=edit
A patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41023
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Has this patch ever been applied and/or reg-tested?
After a quick look to the sources, the answer is no.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
--- Comment #41 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #40)
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #39)
> > > >
> > > > Yes. The lack of an expander for the rqsrt operation is probably
> > > > more severe though (causing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, looking at what other targets do on the #c21 testcase, e.g. rs6000 actually
matches what the combiner produces:
Trying 10, 9 -> 11:
10: r131:SI=r133:DI#0&0xfff00fff
REG_DEAD r133:DI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
--- Comment #40 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #39)
> > >
> > > Yes. The lack of an expander for the rqsrt operation is probably
> > > more severe though (causing sqrt + approx recip to appear)
> > >
> >
> > Can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41023
--- Comment #7 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Has this patch ever been applied and/or reg-tested?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88347
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|dmalcolm at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
--- Comment #39 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
>
> --- Comment #38 from H.J. Lu ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87935
--- Comment #8 from Christophe Lyon ---
Just noticed your patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-01/msg01367.html
The testers will run during the next hours.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89008
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 23 14:02:13 2019
New Revision: 268186
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268186&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-23 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/89008
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87935
--- Comment #7 from Christophe Lyon ---
We still see the same errors.
We post reports for arm on: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-01/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
--- Comment #38 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #37)
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2019, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
> >
> > --- Comment #36 from H.J. Lu ---
> > (I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
--- Comment #37 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
>
> --- Comment #36 from H.J. Lu ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #34)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88531
--- Comment #8 from Florian Schornbaum
---
They are definitely a good source to ask.
We'll try to get in contact with them and see if we can get help/insight.
Thanks for all your input so far!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88293
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87893
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 23 13:54:23 2019
New Revision: 268185
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268185&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/87893 - constexpr ctor ICE on ARM.
PR c++/88293 -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88293
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 23 13:54:23 2019
New Revision: 268185
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268185&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/87893 - constexpr ctor ICE on ARM.
PR c++/88293 -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87935
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merril
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
--- Comment #36 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #34)
> GCC definitely fails to see the FMA use as opportunity in
> ix86_emit_swsqrtsf, the a == 0 checking is because of the missing
> expander w/o avx512er where we could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88560
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88850
--- Comment #7 from Tamar Christina ---
Thanks for the information Vladimir,
I wasn't aware of this special treatment of cost 2. Changing the cost does
indeed fix the ICE.
Working on a sensible patch now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87214
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 87214, which changed state.
Bug 87214 Summary: [9 Regression] r263772 miscompiled 520.omnetpp_r in SPEC CPU
2017
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87214
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89010
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 23 13:18:50 2019
New Revision: 268183
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268183&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/89010
* libsanitizer/README.gcc: Update to cu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
>
> Martin Liška changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 88900, which changed state.
Bug 88900 Summary: [9 Regression] 502.gcc_r SPEC benchmark miscompiles with LTO
and PGO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89009
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Ok
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Using -flto only for tree-ssa-reassoc.o produces the miscompiled GCC (other
files are takes from -O2 -fno-lto build).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89011
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Hangauer ---
I just found out that using nullptr it *does* work. So it is the initialization
by integer zero that does not work.
#include
template
struct test {
int v;
};
struct dummy {
bool fcn(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89008
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 45506
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45506&action=edit
patch for the * 0 issue in reassoc
I am testing a mitigation (and missed optimization fix) in reassoc. Bill,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89009
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86946
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
This bug has been hanging around for months now.
Should it be marked as a 9.0 regression ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89008
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> Started with r236440 and was fixed with r263875.
Thanks Martin - this means both the * 0 added by reassoc and the SLSR issue
are latent.
Found * 0, removing all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89008
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Started with r236440 and was fixed with r263875.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89008
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89008
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87566
--- Comment #10 from Antony Lewis ---
In the latest 9.0 trunk I still see what looks like a similar ICE error (though
I have not tried to isolate it again). See
https://travis-ci.org/cmbant/forutils/builds/483365115
when running test script in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88994
--- Comment #6 from Robin ---
Ok, thx
Envoyé depuis ProtonMail mobile
Message d'origine
On 23 janv. 2019 à 12:33, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org a écrit :
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88994
>
> --- Comment #5 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
I first isolated minimal test-case for which I can see the miscompilation of
the benchmark compiler:
$ cat scilab.c
int a, b, c, d;
void e() { a = (d >= c ? d : c) - 1 + b; }
$ bash -x ./reduce-ice.sh scilab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88994
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Robin from comment #4)
> Perfect! How do I test your patch. If I update my git clone of gcc (gcov is
> in gcc repo, isn't it?), it should already be in it, or do I need to wait a
> few days?
> I g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89010
--- Comment #3 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> The patch looks fine to me. Will you send the patch to the GCC mailing list?
Sent!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88980
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89010
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #26 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #25)
> We have BIT_INSERT_EXPR on GIMPLE, which in the end is a quarternary
> operation previous value, value to insert, bit position and bit size (the
> last one i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89011
Bug ID: 89011
Summary: member function pointer template argument with
initialization by constant generates ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88994
--- Comment #4 from Robin ---
Perfect! How do I test your patch. If I update my git clone of gcc (gcov is in
gcc repo, isn't it?), it should already be in it, or do I need to wait a few
days?
I guess I can also apply the patch itself on my repo t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek ---
We have BIT_INSERT_EXPR on GIMPLE, which in the end is a quarternary operation
previous value, value to insert, bit position and bit size (the last one is
implicit in this GIMPLE op), so you're arguing we sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> Created attachment 45504 [details]
> Untested patch candidate
>
> @Martin: Can you please take a look at the patch?
The patch survives regression tests and bootst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89010
--- Comment #1 from Jonny Grant ---
Created attachment 45505
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45505&action=edit
README.gcc.patch
2019-01-23 Jonny Grant
PR 89010
* libsanitizer/README.gcc: Update to current
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89010
Bug ID: 89010
Summary: Update URLs in libsanitizer/README.gcc
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89009
Bug ID: 89009
Summary: Miscompilation (missing function call) with
-fvisibility=hidden -fpic -O2 -fno-inline
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #24 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Steve Ellcey from comment #21)
> Successfully matched this instruction:
> (set (zero_extract:SI (reg/i:SI 0 x0)
> (const_int 8 [0x8])
> (const_int 12 [0xc]))
> (zero_exten
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
--- Comment #35 from Chris Elrod ---
> rsqrt:
> .LFB12:
> .cfi_startproc
> vrsqrt28ps (%rsi), %zmm0
> vmovups %zmm0, (%rdi)
> vzeroupper
> ret
>
> (huh? isn't there a NR step missing?)
>
I assume
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 45504
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45504&action=edit
Untested patch candidate
@Martin: Can you please take a look at the patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88531
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Florian Schornbaum from comment #6)
> Thanks Jakub. That's good information to have.
>
> We would certainly be willing to help since this is something that we would
> really like GCC to be able
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88998
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88531
--- Comment #6 from Florian Schornbaum
---
Thanks Jakub. That's good information to have.
We would certainly be willing to help since this is something that we would
really like GCC to be able to handle.
Does it make sense for us, as developer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88999
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to sandra from comment #0)
> I see that these tests are xfailed for bare-metal ARM targets with a note
> that ARM semihosting doesn't support the underlying fstat call, but that is
> not true of n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88994
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Robin from comment #2)
> Nice :)
> Feel free to ask me any additionnal things if it may help.
I guess I've got it.
Patch candidate:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-01/msg01350.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89008
Bug ID: 89008
Summary: O2 and O1 results differ for simple test
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89000
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89003
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89002
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Version|5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89001
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88999
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||nios2-elf
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88998
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89007
Bug ID: 89007
Summary: Implement generic vector average expansion
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87306
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89006
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88995
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88987
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88986
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88988
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88985
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89006
Bug ID: 89006
Summary: [9 Regression] New note: non-delegitimized UNSPEC
UNSPEC_SET_GOT (14) found in variable location since
r267638
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88980
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88976
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Version|4.9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88946
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88974
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88946
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |vries at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88941
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88939
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88964
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] ICE in |[8 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88964
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 23 08:35:38 2019
New Revision: 268179
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268179&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/88964
* gimple-loop-interchange.cc (l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87835
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88939
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed Jan 23 08:16:42 2019
New Revision: 268177
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268177&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[nvptx, libgomp] Fix assert (!s->map->active) in map_fini
There are curren
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88941
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed Jan 23 08:16:42 2019
New Revision: 268177
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268177&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[nvptx, libgomp] Fix assert (!s->map->active) in map_fini
There are curren
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87835
--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed Jan 23 08:16:11 2019
New Revision: 268176
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268176&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[nvptx, libgomp] Fix map_push
The map field of a struct ptx_stream is a FI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89005
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Tentative patch to remove initial element:
...
diff --git a/libgomp/plugin/plugin-nvptx.c b/libgomp/plugin/plugin-nvptx.c
index ff90b67cb86..cbabc8dba96 100644
--- a/libgomp/plugin/plugin-nvptx.c
+++ b/libgomp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89005
Bug ID: 89005
Summary: [nvptx, libgomp] Too much memory allocated in map_init
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Co
101 - 195 of 195 matches
Mail list logo
