https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93058
--- Comment #4 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> @Sergei: Can you please send a patch for this?
Sent as https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg01642.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93365
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 03:37:04PM +, markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> If the parameter attribute is removed or a non zero sized array is used, the
> ICE does not occur.
>
> The ICE occurs in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92767
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93410
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I doubt GCC 9 is going to change.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93410
Bug ID: 93410
Summary: can't use _Decimal64 in C99/C11/C17 mode
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93368
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93316
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93367
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93367
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a0b935ac66bc9804b0864151e5f1bfde5ac1ddeb
commit r10-6195-ga0b935ac66bc9804b0864151e5f1bfde5ac1ddeb
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92767
--- Comment #5 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Recent builds have been fine:
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=gcc-10=m68k=10-20200117-2=1579373512=0
I guess it's safe to close this issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88589
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92395
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92767
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93349
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Within the analyzer exploded_graph::process_node has:
2312 /* Update cfun and input_location in case of an ICE: make it easier
to
2313 track down which source construct we're failing to handle.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42129
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90162
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92269
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92924
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
-fvpt still has no effect on Firefox
https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/compare?originalProject=try=20725e2c319ad69128f075248bc41a0e97029437=try=8a26cb77fed6ccc6752c6ad906a8e20767b454a1=1
while it used
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91882
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is a job for reassociation pass really.
coming into that pass we have:
_1 = a_3(D) | b_4(D);
if (_1 != 0)
goto ; [50.00%]
else
goto ; [50.00%]
[local count: 536870913]:
_5 = a_3(D) &
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93027
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3a26c7b3a3569a5e1b6f0342e50aefe76ad0ec4d
commit r10-6190-g3a26c7b3a3569a5e1b6f0342e50aefe76ad0ec4d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93409
Bug ID: 93409
Summary: [10 Regression] gcn libgomp plugin fails to build for
x32
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93177
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
You cannot use that from intrinsics. But the target code can do similar of
course, whether or not asm syntax for this exists.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93177
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
If PowerPC back-end supported the "Flag Output Operands" part of GCC's
inline-asm, you could use that to do the correct thing. But sadly PowerPC does
not currently.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38308
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jerome.hamm@planete-science
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93406
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93316
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
> Sorry about the failing tests.
>
> As noted in comment #4, r10-6152-gda7cf663b75513e4d2baf5a579ffcb4f8a61193b
> hopefully fixes all of these
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91838
--- Comment #6 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
FWIW, I'd prefer gnu::vector_size(N) to not introduce any additional UB over
the scalar arithmetic types. I.e. behave like if promotion would happen, just
with final assignment back to T (truncation).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93402
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] Wrong |[8/9 Regression] Wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93402
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:32667e04c7153d97d09d81c1af073d400f0c719a
commit r10-6186-g32667e04c7153d97d09d81c1af073d400f0c719a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93345
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93408
Bug ID: 93408
Summary: PPC: Provide intrinsics for cache prefetch
instructions
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93345
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:20afdcd36982752ba012960b862e9be7154b1274
commit r10-6183-g20afdcd36982752ba012960b862e9be7154b1274
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93177
--- Comment #11 from Matt Emmerton ---
> > > > The implementation of stwcx() and stdcx() need revision on PPC.
> > > > As I understand it, there is no need the mfocrf instruction nor the
> > > > mask-and-shift on result.
> > >
> > > How else
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 92804, which changed state.
Bug 92804 Summary: [10 Regression] ICE trying to use concept as a
nested-name-specifier
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92804
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92804
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92804
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paolo Carlini :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c91072247eb066ec9c6cd0b0f949c7dae691e46c
commit r10-6185-gc91072247eb066ec9c6cd0b0f949c7dae691e46c
Author: Paolo Carlini
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93331
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6f346913f2a87e26c6095d9fbf3d20f926c5470a
commit r10-6184-g6f346913f2a87e26c6095d9fbf3d20f926c5470a
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93331
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33799
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:20afdcd36982752ba012960b862e9be7154b1274
commit r10-6183-g20afdcd36982752ba012960b862e9be7154b1274
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #118 from EML ---
(In reply to EML from comment #117)
> I do appreciate someone else taking a look at this; I've had a lot of
> changes at work, so this really took a back seat. And I don't have access to
> the HP compiler to try
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93012
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #117 from EML ---
I do appreciate someone else taking a look at this; I've had a lot of changes
at work, so this really took a back seat. And I don't have access to the HP
compiler to try things. I think this is an important step is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On January 23, 2020 6:00:02 PM GMT+01:00, "amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348
>
>--- Comment #19 from Alexander Monakov
>---
>(In reply to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93127
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-*-*-* |powerpc*-*-*
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91838
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
Ah, indeed, it should be explicitly UB, and the documentation should mention
that as well as that implicit integer promotion does not happen for vector
shifts and other operations.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93123
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-*-*-* |powerpc*-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93407
Bug ID: 93407
Summary: Dead partial memset not optimized away (clang does
that)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93406
Bug ID: 93406
Summary: No argument checking for wchar_t variants of
print-like functions
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93404
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 47701
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47701=edit
inliner size stats parser
It took me a while to find some reasonable way to analyze code size regressions
caused by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348
--- Comment #19 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #18)
> represent all accesses indirectly via pointers
Would that be necessary in presence of a verifier that ensures that all
references are dominated by births?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84919
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Summary|[8/9/10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93391
--- Comment #7 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yup, that fixed all the errors I was seeing on powerpc64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348
--- Comment #18 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #17)
> I think part of the problem is trying to make "deaths" explicit via CLOBBERs
> without making "births" also explicit in the IR.
Yes, that's basically the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93375
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93402
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47700
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47700=edit
gcc10-pr93402.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93375
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:648796dab42b6e839f10fee5835f24cd2016a9f4
commit r10-6182-g648796dab42b6e839f10fee5835f24cd2016a9f4
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93365
--- Comment #3 from markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to markeggleston from comment #2)
> f951: internal compiler error: in gfc_match_varspec, at
> fortran/primary.c:2389
> 0x727097 gfc_match_varspec(gfc_expr*, int, bool, bool)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93391
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Now fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93391
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6d00f052ef209bacdd93f503b0c5fb428cc6c434
commit r10-6181-g6d00f052ef209bacdd93f503b0c5fb428cc6c434
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40752
--- Comment #37 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6d00f052ef209bacdd93f503b0c5fb428cc6c434
commit r10-6181-g6d00f052ef209bacdd93f503b0c5fb428cc6c434
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93405
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93391
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93279
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93405
Bug ID: 93405
Summary: Passing constant arguments to subroutines in Fortran
... and the analyzer.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93235
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91838
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Good point. Since gnu::vector_size(N) types are defined by you, you might be
able to say that for char and short this is also UB. After all the left operand
isn't actually promoted to int.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93402
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93369
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Why? Is there any advantage to that? The probability of having a collision
anywhere in the repo is nihil with ten digits already, and anywhere in the
world ever with twelve. Why do we want
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93404
Bug ID: 93404
Summary: [10 regression] -O2 and -O2 -flto SPEC2006 and 2017
code size regression
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93365
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markeggleston at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93402
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
-(insn 14 13 23 2 (parallel [
-(set (reg:DI 1 dx [94])
-(plus:DI (reg:DI 1 dx [95])
-(reg:DI 5 di [92])))
-(clobber (reg:CC 17 flags))
-])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93385
--- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor ---
Another option, which does not create an inter-pass dependency and
does not clutter tree-inline any more, but which pessimizes IPA-SRA
(put perhaps just alittle bit?), is making sure that the statements
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93376
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c124b345e460780e3c3d4a6e58d0e6e03da982a1
commit r10-6178-gc124b345e460780e3c3d4a6e58d0e6e03da982a1
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93402
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91947
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:04681fca936b5bca1dd374dfb0fbca7ccb028994
commit r10-6177-g04681fca936b5bca1dd374dfb0fbca7ccb028994
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91947
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk, backport to the branch needed too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92778
Hannes Hauswedell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93402
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93395
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93403
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91824
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93403
Bug ID: 93403
Summary: __gcov_indirect_call_profiler_v4 needs atomic version.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93402
Bug ID: 93402
Summary: Wrong code when returning padded struct
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91838
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93157
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Someone who can test this should send a patch, and Cc: the Musl OS port
maintainer
(is there one? There should be!)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93157
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93398
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
Also forgot to mention, it is also quite possible that some of the small
divergences propagate themselves into differences in the histogram and
thus differences in hot/cold decisions in completely unrelated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93176
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
When you want the bits from bit MB to ME (inclusive) set, you can just do
li t,-1
rldic d,T,MB,63-ME
(bit # 0 is the high bit; can also do wrap-around masks this way).
Confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93398
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
The divergence for non-randomization seems under control. But it also
seems that the divergence for randomized build is way too common to be
explained by differences in number of conflicts for hashtables
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92440
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93401
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93401
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93401
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mliska at suse dot cz
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93401
Bug ID: 93401
Summary: [9/10 regression] It is no longer possible to use
-fprofile-generate= on setups with different
instrumentation and feedback directories
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92469
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93177
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Matt Emmerton from comment #9)
> > > __sync()
> > > __isync()
> > > __lwsync()
> >
> > The sync intrinsics need to be tied to some other code. A volatile asm with
> > a "memory" clobber
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92444
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92472
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92453
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
