https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107766
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107776
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97665
dysnomia.eris at online dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dysnomia.eris at online d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107803
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107803
Bug ID: 107803
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in init_from_control_deps, at
gimple-predicate-analysis.cc:1699 since
r13-2314-ga8ebd27d0ab69b
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107802
Bug ID: 107802
Summary: -Wsuggest-attribute=format ignores
[[gnu::format(...)]]
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107647
Bug 107647 depends on bug 107766, which changed state.
Bug 107766 Summary: [13 Regression] ICE Segmentation fault since
r13-4137-gc5df8392c5848c04
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107766
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107766
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107766
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1a06ae6f2f4f292fd05a900bcf433cb4282da1e3
commit r13-4226-g1a06ae6f2f4f292fd05a900bcf433cb4282da1e3
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107748
--- Comment #9 from Hongtao.liu ---
Since BFmode is most like in xmm register, I'm going to use vector shift
instruction: pslld $16, %xmm0 for extendbfsf2, psrld %16, %xmm0 for truncsfbf2,
It doesn't require any GPR, and no need to use avx512bf1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107801
Bug ID: 107801
Summary: Building cross compiler for H8 family fails in
libstdc++ (c++17/memory_resource.cc)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107790
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89180
Bug 89180 depends on bug 107791, which changed state.
Bug 107791 Summary: Spurious -Wunused warning for artificial variable
introduced for post contract
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107791
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107791
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107800
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-22
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107800
Bug ID: 107800
Summary: confusing message with to_address in C++17
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107795
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
FWIW on Fedora with glibc 2.35 I get:
. /tmp/__fake_cxx_include/limits.h
.. /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/12/include/limits.h
... /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/12/include/syslimits.h
/tmp/__fa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107799
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107795
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107788
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from David Malc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107783
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #4 from David Malco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107783
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:12a4785c9120beeef42f1bded52cc2674e206f57
commit r13-4220-g12a4785c9120beeef42f1bded52cc2674e206f57
Author: David Malcolm
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107788
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4e4e45a4fd341174d8231ee6a99e6fe308904f8f
commit r13-4221-g4e4e45a4fd341174d8231ee6a99e6fe308904f8f
Author: David Malcolm
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:358dab90186b30a5d287710f13625c327210218d
commit r13-4219-g358dab90186b30a5d287710f13625c327210218d
Author: David Malcolm
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107795
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
Let me ask another question.
What does clang/libc++ does on Solaris or aix or any non gcc related target?
Does it provide its own limits.h?
If so stop including the one included one with gcc for when gcc is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107799
Bug ID: 107799
Summary: Wrong return type for std::bit_width
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107795
--- Comment #13 from Louis Dionne ---
Let me rephrase my whole request here.
I understand that what GCC does work for GCC and GCC-adjacent projects. This
report is about making the behavior of more friendly to
implementations that are not GCC-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107661
--- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #13)
> It seems to have something to do with
> push_agg_values_from_edge()/push_agg_values_for_index_from_edge() behaviour
> of filtering self-recursive lattice
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107781
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107798
--- Comment #6 from angelo ---
Thanks a lot. Clear now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107798
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> When the program accesses (*m)[4]. You involved undefined behavior. Anything
> can happen after that.
Sorry (*m)[3] . So if the compiler thinks it is undefined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107798
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
When the program accesses (*m)[4]. You involved undefined behavior. Anything
can happen after that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107798
--- Comment #3 from angelo ---
Hi Andrew,
thanks, anyway, even if accessing on read a wrong memory address, shouldn't
anyway i < 3 * 3 be respected anyway, due to && ? With -O3 the code goes far
over 9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107795
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Louis Dionne from comment #11)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> >
> > GCC version specific includes > GCC version specific fixincludes > C library
> > includes
> >
> > That is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107795
--- Comment #11 from Louis Dionne ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
>
> GCC version specific includes > GCC version specific fixincludes > C library
> includes
>
> That is for C.
> C++ is:
> libstdc++ library includes > ... (rest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107798
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
With -fsanitize=undefined we do detect the original undefined behavior at
runtime:
/app/example.cpp:21:50: runtime error: index 3 out of bounds for type 'A [3]'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107798
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107798
Bug ID: 107798
Summary: optimizing -O3, "for" loop condition not checked
anymore
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107755
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.5
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107755
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107465
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107795
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> GCC version specific includes > GCC version specific fixincludes > C library
> includes
And if you think fixincludes it is not needed even with a reasonable n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107795
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Louis Dionne from comment #8)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Louis Dionne from comment #4)
> > > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > > > You should no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107795
--- Comment #8 from Louis Dionne ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to Louis Dionne from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > > You should not be building on top of GCC's limits.h header at all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107795
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Louis Dionne from comment #4)
> Yeah but we may need to add stuff to on some platforms, so we may
> need to have such a header. Also, I assume you only do that for a subset of
> headers, becaus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107795
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Louis Dionne from comment #4)
> Yeah but we may need to add stuff to on some platforms, so we may
> need to have such a header. Also, I assume you only do that for a subset of
> headers, beca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107795
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Louis Dionne from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > You should not be building on top of GCC's limits.h header at all really.
> > Rather implementations should have t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107795
--- Comment #4 from Louis Dionne ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> You should not be building on top of GCC's limits.h header at all really.
> Rather implementations should have their own.
What do you mean by "implementations"?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107797
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(gdb) p debug_generic_expr(expr)
(long int) (int *) D.2758
...
1209if (implicit != ICV_CAST && !warning_suppressed_p (expr /* What
warning? */))
1210 new_op1 = convert_to_void (op1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107797
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
The artificial COMPOUND_EXPR here comes from build_new_1:
if (init_expr)
rval = build2 (COMPOUND_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (rval), init_expr, rval);
if (cookie_expr)
rval = build2 (COMPOUND_EXPR, TREE_TYP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107405
--- Comment #17 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Sat, 19 Nov 2022, macro at orcam dot me.uk via Gcc-bugs wrote:
> If in older C standard versions such enums are invalid, then I think
> this should be a hard error rather than a silent
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107797
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.1.2
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107797
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107797
Bug ID: 107797
Summary: "warning right operand of comma operator has no
effect" for expressions with no comma operator
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107779
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107792
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107784
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107792
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107791
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 87497, which changed state.
Bug 87497 Summary: constexprs involving non-literal const variables are
incorrectly accepted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87497
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87497
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107795
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Rather implementations should have their own.
Or just use GCC's one without change, which is what libstdc++ does. We don't
provide any in libstdc++, only . W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107796
Bug ID: 107796
Summary: The vector extension documentation should be improved
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentation
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107790
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107783
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107575
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |trivial
Summary|ICE: tree ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107794
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107795
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>This recursive inclusion with a macro is hostile to implementations that want
>to build on top of GCC's header
You should not be building on top of GCC's limits.h header at all really.
Rather implementat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107795
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |bootstrap
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107795
Bug ID: 107795
Summary: recursion through breaks
non-GNU implementations of the C++ stdlib
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107767
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Summary|GCC has some pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107788
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107549
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Summary|heap-buffer-ove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107516
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
Summary|[13 Reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107411
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||larsbj at gullik dot org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 107793, which changed state.
Bug 107793 Summary: trivial-auto-var-init=pattern invalid uninitialized
variable warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107793
What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107793
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107465
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Untested fix, just know it fixes the testcase.
But I need to see what changes does it cause in the C/C++ testsuites and
probably write more extensive testsuite coverage.
--- gcc/c/c-warn.cc.jj 2022-10-28 11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107786
ptomsich at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107465
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I bet the warning also doesn't make really sense for the case where we'd have
unfolded BIT_NOT_EXPR of a constant compared to non-constant, so which of the
operands is BIT_NOT_EXPR should determine which ope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80548
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
These warnings are certainly sensitive to all kinds of things, so it's possible
it's just gone latent. The only way to be sure would be to bisect all the work
between gcc-12 and the trunk and pour over the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107794
--- Comment #3 from Eric Sessoms ---
I thought it was a bug b/c it worked as I expected in clang. You're right, I
didn't think it through. Sorry to have wasted your time, but thanks for
setting me straight.
Please close, invalid.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107465
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107786
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Thanks for the quick fix. Can I close it as fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107794
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Why do you think this is a bug?
linux is defined somewhere, either by gcc or by the headers. I think it is
predefined and disabled by using -std=c11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107794
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
"linux" is a predefined macro. Compile with -std=c17 instead of the default
-std=gnu17 to disable that.
See https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/System-specific-Predefined-Macros.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107794
Bug ID: 107794
Summary: can't use the string "linux-" via stringizing in the
preprocessor
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107781
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107792
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> default std::handle_contract_violation called:
N.B. The function is not in namespace std.
This seems better:
default handle_contract_violation called [de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107467
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104088
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107733
--- Comment #3 from Geoffrey ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #2)
Thanks for your explanation. It helps a lot.
> _It's analyzing "a" twice: as called by main, and as a standalone function._
I am wondering if is there any option f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107793
Bug ID: 107793
Summary: trivial-auto-var-init=pattern invalid uninitialized
variable warning
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105373
--- Comment #16 from Avi Kivity ---
Bug hasn't fixed itself as of ccb9c7b129206209cfc315ab1a0432b5f517bdd9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107542
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107516
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13 Regression] ICE with|[13 Regression] ICE with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107539
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13 Regression] ICE, same |[13 Regression] ICE, same
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107714
--- Comment #5 from Kevin Bracey ---
I had a look at the GCC source. The vld2/vst2/vld4/vst4 instructions in mve.md
have reused the "Um" constraint used for vld/vst in Neon, which permits
both "!" and register offset.
This needs to be tightened
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107549
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
1 - 100 of 198 matches
Mail list logo
