-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/home/su/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.0 20180511 (experimental) [trunk revision 260178] (GCC)
$
$ gcctk -m32 -O0 small.c; ./a.out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85755
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
That is, that GCC 8 did not do pre-increment, but it did no silliness
with float registers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85755
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85755
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Sigh, i forgot -mcpu=power8 on that last test.
GCC 7 was just fine, stdu, everything.
GCC 8 was bad already.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85724
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85722
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 44115
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44115=edit
libffi test log
(In reply to Chris Giorgi from comment #6)
> Sorry, only pasted one link, here's the libffi test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85746
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85556
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri May 11 07:37:35 2018
New Revision: 260154
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260154=gcc=rev
Log:
Support LLVM style of no_sanitize attribute (PR sanitizer/85556).
2018-05-11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85725
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
doesn't strchr (a, '1') return a if a[0] == '1'? You seem to read
"in the string s" as imposing s to be properly null-terminated. I don't.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85746
Bug ID: 85746
Summary: Premature evaluation of __builtin_constant_p?
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85740
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> These functions are not functional equivalent.
>
> In the b.c, it records the max location but it is the last element which
> contains that value. While in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85744
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85744
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85733
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85745
Bug ID: 85745
Summary: variable with asm register assignment allocated in
wrong reg
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80617
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85720
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85696
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 11 07:42:50 2018
New Revision: 260156
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260156=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c/85696
* c-omp.c (c_omp_predetermined_sharing): Return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85692
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 11 07:38:49 2018
New Revision: 260155
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260155=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/85692
* tree-ssa-forwprop.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80617
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 11 May 2018, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80617
>
> --- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85744
--- Comment #7 from cerlane ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> You should have read https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ which explains what we need
> for a valid bug report, and would have done that before reporting it.
>
> You probably
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85726
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85722
--- Comment #6 from Chris Giorgi ---
Sorry, only pasted one link, here's the libffi test log:
http://termbin.com/vzy5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85722
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(Based on discussion on IRC these log files are just copy from the
terminal connected to the machines where gcc is being built, because of some
weird restricted system with limited access which also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19808
--- Comment #44 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #40)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #39)
> > so - how do I make X::X used and thus prevail? It looks like it doesn't
> > really exist
>
> True, for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85744
cerlane changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85721
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85734
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85738
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85740
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85696
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed for 9.1+ so far, backports queued.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85739
--- Comment #1 from Freddie Chopin ---
I'm currently in the process of reducing the test case with the wonderful tool
that I've found yesterday - C-Reduce (; I hope that I'll be able to upload
something short and generic (not requiring
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85606
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Fri May 11 09:28:10 2018
New Revision: 260157
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260157=gcc=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/85606 prefer armv6s-m for armv6-m parts
When Arm introduced
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Antony Polukhin from comment #0)
> Could the compiler detect that `a[7]` holds values known at compile time and
> force the constexpr on `sort(a + 0, a + 7);`?
There has to be a limit. If I write
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85740
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #5)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > These functions are not functional equivalent.
> >
> > In the b.c, it records the max location but it is the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23094
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85715
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84874
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daffra.claudio at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85722
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
You are building gmp/mpfr in-tree - what versions? __i386__ isn't defined on
x86_64 so the issue looks in whatever does those "testcases". The log isn't
helpful as it seems to be produced with -jN and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85731
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85692
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85733
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85717
--- Comment #4 from claudio daffra ---
I expect that the compiler regardless of the location of the types
always gives me the same result, error message or warning
indeed :
# case integer before double :
union
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85740
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Confirmed with a Haswell CPU as well. Without the __builtin_expect we
> rightfully predict the branch to be 50%/50% which means BB re-ordering will
> do either
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85606
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50392
--- Comment #17 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Sorry, I don't want to generate unnecessary traffic, I'm just scrolling thru
old c.l.f. discussions and stumble over some old reports there from time to
time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85725
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
The C standard defines a string as "a contiguous sequence of characters
terminated by and including the first null character" (7.1.1).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82229
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85742
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50392
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85742
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50392
--- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> This gives in ICE now with the current trunk, while it just shows
> an error message for a "Deleted feature" when using -std=f95.
Confirmed from at least 4.8 up to trunk (9.0).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
Bug ID: 85747
Summary: suboptimal code without constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85748
Eberhard Franz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85748
Bug ID: 85748
Summary: dbg, gfortran: Erroneous watch of matrix rows as
formal arguments using assumed shape
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83687
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85698
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
I can see what the patch does to this testcase on x86_64 - it enables BB
vectorization of the first two loops after runrolling. I don't see anything
suspicious here on x86_64 and 525.x264_r works fine for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85606
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Fri May 11 09:30:49 2018
New Revision: 260158
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260158=gcc=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/85606 prefer armv6s-m for armv6-m parts
When Arm introduced
__
Even Wall Thickness Hollow Rotor For Downhole PC Pump
* Well washing through hollow rotor;
* Steam injection into well through hollow sucker rod and hollow rotor;
* use of same components of sucker rod pumping system for both pumping and
injecting.
* The system requires the drilling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85739
Freddie Chopin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #44111|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68846
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri May 11 09:35:55 2018
New Revision: 260160
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260160=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-05-11 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/68846
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70864
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri May 11 09:35:55 2018
New Revision: 260160
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260160=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-05-11 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/68846
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83687
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri May 11 09:35:31 2018
New Revision: 260159
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260159=gcc=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/83687: Fix invalid combination of VSUB + VABS into
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85745
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85746
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> For different versions there is the
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-03/msg00355.html
> patch.
Time to ping that one? ;-)
(I don't have a particular
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85655
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri May 11 15:55:15 2018
New Revision: 260165
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260165=gcc=rev
Log:
Check is_single_const in intersect_with_plats
2018-05-11 Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85655
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri May 11 15:58:29 2018
New Revision: 260166
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260166=gcc=rev
Log:
Check is_single_const in intersect_with_plats
2018-05-11 Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
--- Comment #13 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Remains now:
1) add support for PIC access to the guard
2) finish cleanup of the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82571
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||6.4.0, 7.3.0, 8.1.0
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85746
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84201
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
When benchmarking GCC 8 on an older Ivy Bridge Xeon, I also got 549.fotonik3d_r
verification error just with -Ofast -g -march=native -mtune=native
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85733
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Fri May 11 13:30:55 2018
New Revision: 260163
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260163=gcc=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/85733 Restore be8 linking behaviour for ARMv6-M and products
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85734
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81914
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85717
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85733
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|documentation |
--- Comment #2 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85733
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Fri May 11 13:29:41 2018
New Revision: 260162
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260162=gcc=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/85733 Restore be8 linking behaviour for ARMv6-M and products
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85734
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
There is function_always_visible_to_compiler_p which should disable this sort
of warning. So I suppose we want to test it prior warning about malloc
attribute?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
--- Comment #3 from Antony Polukhin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> What's the reason for writing the code as you pasted it?
I've tried to provide a simplified case. In real world `generate()` function
will have some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
--- Comment #4 from Antony Polukhin ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #2)
> (In reply to Antony Polukhin from comment #0)
> > Could the compiler detect that `a[7]` holds values known at compile time and
> > force the constexpr on `sort(a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48200
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #20 from Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85733
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Antony Polukhin from comment #4)
> Does providing some kind of -Oon-the-fly switch solves the issue with JIT
> compile times while still allows more optimizations for the traditional non
> JIT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85725
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
That's right: unless otherwise specified, string functions require as arguments
valid strings, or as the C++ standard defines them, NTBS (nul-terminated byte
string). Thus the only valid string that can be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85656
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85656
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #3)
> Created attachment 44108 [details]
> i386-pc-solaris2.11 ipa-icf-38.exe.wpa.073i.icf
>
> It's only one part that fails
>
> FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-icf-38.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85717
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Given that integer literals are convertible to FP (or even are also FP
literals) what do you expect?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80617
--- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> Dup of PR23094 (and fixed).
Richard, comment #9 shows that the original testcase is only half-fixed (though
the other half seems hard to fix). Does this mean
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85521
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri May 11 17:59:05 2018
New Revision: 260175
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260175=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-05-11 Steven G. Kargl
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85749
--- Comment #1 from martingalvan at sourceware dot org ---
Created attachment 44119
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44119=edit
Preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85687
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri May 11 18:33:05 2018
New Revision: 260179
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260179=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-05-11 Steven G. Kargl
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85750
Bug ID: 85750
Summary: Default initialization of derived type array missing
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85749
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85749
Bug ID: 85749
Summary: Possible -Wsign-conversion false negative with
std::default_random_engine
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85521
--- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri May 11 18:34:14 2018
New Revision: 260180
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260180=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-05-11 Steven G. Kargl
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85687
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85521
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85751
Bug ID: 85751
Summary: RFE: option to align code using breakpoint
instructions when unreachable
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo