https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92587
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98258
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Chinoune from comment #7)
> $ gfortran-10 -O3 -fopenmp -fopenacc -c bug_omp_acc.f90
> $ gfortran-10 bug_omp_acc.o -lgomp -o test.x
Contrary to my suggestion, you have omitted -fopenacc from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98473
--- Comment #3 from Borislav Stanimirov ---
By the way, this is not just some esoteric synthetic example. A type which is
copy-constructible but not copy-assignable is very useful to model immutable
objects.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98523
Bug ID: 98523
Summary: Bug with class static definition and non-type template
parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98258
--- Comment #7 from Chinoune ---
$ gfortran -O3 -fopenmp -fopenacc -foffload=-fno-openmp bug_omp_acc.f90 -o
test.x
mkoffload: fatal error: either '-fopenacc' or '-fopenmp' must be set
compilation terminated.
lto-wrapper: fatal error:
/usr/lib/gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98365
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
> cnt.1_7 = (unsigned char) cnt_21;
> _8 = cnt.1_7 + 1;
> cnt_16 = (char) _8;
> cnt_9 = _3 == _6 ? cnt_16 : cnt_21;
>
In tree_if_conversion, there's is_cond_scalar_reduction, i'm think to extend
the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98365
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
> Shouldn't cnt_21 = PHI , stmt relevant?
>
for stmt: cnt.1_7 = (unsigned char) cnt_21, the operand is defined by a
previous iteration of the loop which is assumed to be handled in
induction/reduction.
But
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98258
--- Comment #6 from Chinoune ---
There is no mention of "-foffload=-fno-openmp" on documentation
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Offloading#Compilation_options
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89126
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95381
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #16 from Jeffrey A. Law
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98519
--- Comment #9 from Michael Meissner ---
I agree with Segher. Given the 'magic' we need to add the missing 'p' and set
the length for normal RTL, I don't see any reasonable way to add it to asm. We
will just need to use a hook (or make one) to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98519
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yes, "m" can not allow PC-relative, in inline asm (just think of all existing
code that uses "m").
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98522
Bug ID: 98522
Summary: _mm_cvttps_pi32 and _mm_cvtps_pi32 raise spurious FP
exceptions
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98521
--- Comment #1 from Evan Nemerson ---
Sorry, VS has two parametrs for _mm_frcz_ss and _mm_frcz_sd; clang is the
outlier.
So just the missing _mm256_cmov_si256.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98519
--- Comment #7 from Steven Munroe ---
Then you have problem as @pcrel is never valid for an instruction like lxsd%X1.
Seems like you will need a new constrain or modifier specific to @pcrel.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98519
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
You cannot look at the instruction, ever. The inline asm template is
just text, nothing else. You cannot assume it is valid instructions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98519
--- Comment #5 from Steven Munroe ---
I would think you need to look at the instruction and the "m" constraint.
In this case lxsd%X1 would need to be converted to plxsd and the "m" constraint
would have to allow @pcrel. I would think a static va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98310
--- Comment #3 from Rong Chen ---
Created attachment 49880
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49880&action=edit
kconfig file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98521
Bug ID: 98521
Summary: [x86] Missing/incorrect XOP functions
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98512
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98512
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98293
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98293
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:15af33a88065f983181550fc53821f1c6e14c5c7
commit r11-6452-g15af33a88065f983181550fc53821f1c6e14c5c7
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98223
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98519
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
"m" is already handled differently for inline asm, so perhaps we can just
extend that? ("m" in machine descriptions is "m<>" in asm, for example).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90799
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98519
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Michael Meissner from comment #2)
> That fell off the plate. I imagine we are going to need a hook with asm
> that makes sure none of the memory references are PC-relative.
I guess since we can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98519
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
That fell off the plate. I imagine we are going to need a hook with asm that
makes sure none of the memory references are PC-relative.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78746
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 98503, which changed state.
Bug 98503 Summary: [11 regression] -Warray-bounds false positive with global
variables at -O2 since r11-3306-g3f9a497d1b0dd9da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98503
Wha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98503
Willy Tarreau changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98323
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The original intent in the C standard was definitely to allow at least
some cases of subobjects; the May 20, 1988 list of changes in the third
public review draft of C89 has as item 10 "The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98520
Bug ID: 98520
Summary: nodiscard not diagnosed in comma operator
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98519
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98519
Bug ID: 98519
Summary: rs6000: @pcrel unsupported on this instruction error
in pveclib
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98029
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Uecker :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a000eb5918e09d28838ef572f4eea924d32db09b
commit r11-6450-ga000eb5918e09d28838ef572f4eea924d32db09b
Author: Martin Uecker
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98258
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
One possible solution is -foffload=-fno-openmp
Another possible solution is separate compilation and linking, with only
OpenACC enabled at link step (needs explicit -lgomp):
gfortran -fopenmp -fopenacc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98518
Bug ID: 98518
Summary: std::array not bound checked with _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98504
--- Comment #3 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but I don't see how this is possible. The
code in the Go frontend is
if (suffix.compare(2, 5, "thunk") == 0
&& Gogo::is_digits(suffix.substr(7)))
return p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96381
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96381
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2bfcf6011a6cdce0439e3d1b94bcb5fcf078f4c2
commit r9-9151-g2bfcf6011a6cdce0439e3d1b94bcb5fcf078f4c2
Author: Harald Anlauf
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96381
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:78ff090d0a0bb5a77560203b3b49bb7da7fcb88c
commit r10-9200-g78ff090d0a0bb5a77560203b3b49bb7da7fcb88c
Author: Harald Anlauf
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98327
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell ---
I cannot reproduce the reported crash -- like I said, I think this is fixed
(thanks for the backtrace).
I suspect Martin failed to copy the first line of the testcase 'module;'
That's important -- it's not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98515
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98517
Bug ID: 98517
Summary: gfortran segfault on character array initialization
from parameter value
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98327
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98516
--- Comment #1 from Martin Reinecke ---
Minimal set of flags to trigger the problem seems to be
g++ -std=c++17 -O1 -ftree-vectorize -fno-signed-zeros bug.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92587
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b7be64f9079dee9f326c791bcec1897047ae0de5
commit r9-9150-gb7be64f9079dee9f326c791bcec1897047ae0de5
Author: Tobias Burnus
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92587
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6f3f06e431c181d3e51d31f49a2bf0be2944ae93
commit r10-9199-g6f3f06e431c181d3e51d31f49a2bf0be2944ae93
Author: Tobias Burnus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 98503, which changed state.
Bug 98503 Summary: [11 regression] -Warray-bounds false positive with global
variables at -O2 since r11-3306-g3f9a497d1b0dd9da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98503
Wha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98503
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98258
--- Comment #4 from Chinoune ---
gfortran -O3 -fopenmp -fopenacc -foffload=disable bug_omp_acc.f90 -o test.x
./test.x 2048
dim1 = dim2 = 2048
CPU Time =4.9989E-03
libgomp: target function wasn't mapped
gfortran -O3 -fopenacc -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98516
Bug ID: 98516
Summary: Wrong code generated by tree vectorizer
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95817
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98515
--- Comment #3 from Julian Sikorski ---
The initial comment meant to say: This fails with gcc-11 but works on gcc-10.2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98258
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98515
--- Comment #2 from Julian Sikorski ---
Created attachment 49878
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49878&action=edit
failing test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98515
--- Comment #1 from Julian Sikorski ---
Created attachment 49877
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49877&action=edit
compiling test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98515
Bug ID: 98515
Summary: Possible regression causing "is protected within this
context" error
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97978
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Thank you for reporting it.
I've started work on the PR. It seems a rare but dangerous bug and its fix
might affect many targets and will require a lot of testing but I try to fix
the PR on this week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98258
--- Comment #2 from Chinoune ---
program main
use omp_lib
implicit none
integer, parameter :: sp = selected_real_kind(6,37)
integer :: i, j, k
integer :: n
character(len=5) :: var
real(sp), allocatable :: a(:,:), b(:,:), c(:,:), cc(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98514
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Oops, sorry, it is just SSA_NAMEs which are default definitions, so that is
less than that; more than 32768 parameters to a function are unlikely, but one
can have thousands of uninitialized SSA_NAMEs, or one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98513
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Happens with -O2 -funswitch-loops.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98513
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Even more reduced test-case:
$ cat combined.cc
unsigned var;
unsigned array[2];
int zero = 0, minus_2 = -2;
const int &max(const int &a, const int &b) { return a > b ? a : b; }
void test(int minus_1)
{
fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 98503, which changed state.
Bug 98503 Summary: [11 regression] -Warray-bounds false positive with global
variables at -O2 since r11-3306-g3f9a497d1b0dd9da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98503
Wha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98503
Willy Tarreau changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98503
--- Comment #4 from Willy Tarreau ---
Hi Martin,
I'm sorry but I'm missing something, as this is how linked lists are
implemented everywhere nowadays. I'm not actually casting the pointer, it was
made for simplification. I'm only following the l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98514
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 98503, which changed state.
Bug 98503 Summary: [11 regression] -Warray-bounds false positive with global
variables at -O2 since r11-3306-g3f9a497d1b0dd9da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98503
Wha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98503
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98514
Bug ID: 98514
Summary: ICE in insert_operand_rank
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98339
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98338
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98337
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-01-04
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98448
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Indeed, I see it passing with today's trunk.
Nathan, if you can't reproduce it feel free to close this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98513
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98335
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98334
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
I think turning (int) (y - 1U) * x + x into unsigned mult is OK even early.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94021
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> CCing Andrew and Aldy to see what the ranger does or can do, talking about
> I mean, if we have:
> h_1 = x_2 / 3600;
> if (x_2 <= -3599 && x_2 <= 8)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98333
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98331
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98330
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98329
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98326
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98325
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98318
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Summary|libcody breaks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98316
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98310
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98302
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98300
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98299
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98513
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.3.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98513
Bug ID: 98513
Summary: [10/11 Regression] Wrong code with -O3 since
r10-2804-gbf05a3bbb58b3558
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98295
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96320
--- Comment #27 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 49875
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49875&action=edit
Fix for the cases in comments 23 and 24
Hi Damian,
Happy New Year! or I wish you a better one anyway.
I ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98294
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98293
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98287
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
We need to guard the patterns. Handling V1 modes in the expanders is possible
but it doesn't fix the root cause (there's also vector-by-scalar shifts).
Maybe we should define/document a set of arithmetics
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96697
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Shall we do that as a specific matcher or e.g. in the ranger once it gets
> code for symbolic comparisons? I mean, for signed t = x % y note that t is
> in [-y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98280
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 180 matches
Mail list logo
