https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #33 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #31)
> The test also fails on PowerPC, the 2 IVs are kept by ivopts.
On targets like ARM, the biv(i) is eliminated with biv(p). PowerPC is
different, it on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63566
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Even with all the committed patches I don't see any change on the #c5 testcase,
which in 4.9 used regparm(3) calling convention e.g. for f1 and f2, but with
current trunk still uses regparm(0).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64894
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54000
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Known to work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54000
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64979
Bug ID: 64979
Summary: S/390: va_list overflow area pointer is not setup due
to stdarg optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: cr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64921
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.0 |4.9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'd say it is a bug in the backend, if you want to override some expansion,
you'd better add some target hook for that, rather than messing up with
MOVE_BY_PIECES and setting it to clearly bogus values.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64434
--- Comment #19 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Andrew!
Could you please try modified test-case (test1.c) which is attached.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64434
--- Comment #20 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 34700
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34700&action=edit
another test-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64858
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64980
Bug ID: 64980
Summary: [5.0 regression] ICE in trans-expr.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64813
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
Hello.
Sorry for delay, I was away last week. Following patch should prevent a
creation of return values for cases where the called function is noreturn.
May I ask you for testing on a darwin machine?
Than
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64813
--- Comment #17 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 34702
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34702&action=edit
Suggested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64978
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
trippels@gcc2-power8 makeconv % cat msgfmt.ii
typedef enum
{
} UErrorCode;
class A
{
virtual A *m_fn1 () const;
};
class B : A
{
B (const B &);
A *m_fn1 () const;
class PluralSelectorProvider
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64674
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Likely a duplicate of pr56386.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56386
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
pr64674 is likely a duplicate of this pr.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #3 from Frank Ch. Eigler ---
If the spammer problem is brought under better control with bz5, sure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54000
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Feb 9 11:51:05 2015
New Revision: 220536
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220536&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-09 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/54000
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58757
--- Comment #5 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Feb 9 11:53:26 2015
New Revision: 220537
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220537&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/58757
* gcc.dg/c11-true_min-1.c: Xfail execution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61548
--- Comment #29 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #28)
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #27)
> > Does the following patch fix the problem?
>
> Yes! Full regtest is underway but this particular FAIL i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64980
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #27 from Tejas Belagod ---
We'd want to scalarize this early preferably in SRA as it gives a chance to
passes like vectorization to vectorize more loops. I checked that
sra-max-scalarization-Osize{-Ospeed} had no effect on scalarizing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64980
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Slightly further reduced:
implicit none
type :: muli_trapezium_t
integer::dim=0
end type
type, extends (muli_trapezium_t) :: muli_trapezium_node_class_t
end type
class(muli_tra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64981
Bug ID: 64981
Summary: [5.0 regression] -fsanitize=address cant expand
__builtin_ia32_rdtsc
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63347
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61138
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
URL|
gcc/gcc/ipa-cp.c:2761
0x1280b92 ipcp_driver
/gcc/gcc/ipa-cp.c:4410
0x1280b92 execute
/gcc/gcc/ipa-cp.c:4505
during compilation of root with g++ (GCC) 5.0.0 20150209
$ g++ -O2 -std=c++11 -c VTableBuilder.ii
/root/interpreter/llvm/src/tools/clang/lib/AST/VTableBuilder.cpp:3491:1:
internal c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64980
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #28 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 9 Feb 2015, belagod at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
>
> --- Comment #27 from Tejas Belagod ---
> We'd want to scalarize this early prefera
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64981
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64813
--- Comment #18 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> May I ask you for testing on a darwin machine?
I have bootstrapped revision r220534 with the patch. AFAICT the patch fixes the
failures reported in this PR (tested with
make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64948
Andrea Azzarone changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrea.azzarone at canonical
dot c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #29 from Tejas Belagod ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #28)
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2015, belagod at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
> >
> > --- Comment #27 from Tejas Belagod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61309
--- Comment #2 from John Marino ---
FYI, this is still happening.
So if/when DragonFly features libgcc_s from 5.0 in base, these errors will go
away?
If so, doesn't that imply the linking is making assumptions it should not make?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64980
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #30 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 9 Feb 2015, belagod at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
>
> --- Comment #29 from Tejas Belagod ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64909
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64813
--- Comment #19 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> However I see the following regression (for both -m32 and -m64)
>
> FAIL: 22_locale/conversions/string/2.cc execution test
It is pr64797 and not a regression due to the patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64982
Bug ID: 64982
Summary: [5 Regression] Many g++ failures on
x86_64-apple-darwin14 with -m32.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64982
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64983
Bug ID: 64983
Summary: Incomplete summary when regtesting with dejagnu 1.5.2.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64909
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64921
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64927
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64935
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64930
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||memory-hog
Component|other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64964
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64956
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64715
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nszabolcs at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64956
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Well, -fabi-version=0 (which is the default now) has always behaved that way.
The question is if we want to change that or not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64980
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Summary|[5.0 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64966
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64979
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64978
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64983
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64981
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
Summary|[5.0 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64909
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
E.g.
unsigned short a[32];
unsigned int b[32];
void
foo ()
{
b[0] = a[0];
b[1] = a[1];
b[2] = a[2];
b[3] = a[3];
}
will do, or b[0] = a[0] + 5; b[1] = a[1] + 5; b[2] = a[2] + 5; b[3] = a[3] + 5;
and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64979
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|s390-linux |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64982
--- Comment #1 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Feb 8 21:08:44 2015
New Revision: 220521
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220521&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/63566
* ipa-visibility.c (cgraph_node:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64909
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> E.g.
> unsigned short a[32];
> unsigned int b[32];
>
> void
> foo ()
> {
> b[0] = a[0];
> b[1] = a[1];
> b[2] = a[2];
> b[3] = a[3];
> }
>
> will do, o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64948
--- Comment #2 from Andrea Azzarone ---
(In reply to Andrea Azzarone from comment #1)
> Created attachment 34705 [details]
> Proposed fix to allow the use of enable_if for UDLs.
Sorry this patch was for a different bug report. Please delete it i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64959
Andrea Azzarone changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrea.azzarone at canonical
dot c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57284
--- Comment #3 from Lorenz Hüdepohl ---
Any progress on this one? 4.9.2 still produces the error:
> ~/sys/stow/gcc-4.9.2/bin/gfortran --version
GNU Fortran (GCC) 4.9.2
Copyright (C) 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
GNU Fortran comes with NO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63572
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
As Cary Countant wrote me, gold's ICF has never implemented support for call
site tables in GDB. Moreover, when Jakub designed the new call site tags, the
design hasn't been changed. In last 4 years, there st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64984
Bug ID: 64984
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE in check_noexcept_t with ubsan
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64984
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64980
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #4)
> This cures it:
Another way to cure it:
Index: trans-expr.c
===
--- trans-expr.c(révision 22051
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61309
--- Comment #3 from Kai-Uwe Eckhardt ---
Hello John,
> FYI, this is still happening.
> So if/when DragonFly features libgcc_s from 5.0 in base, these errors will go
> away?
To be honest I am not quite sure, but I think it is not the presence of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64982
--- Comment #2 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
Actually reverting...
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Feb 8 21:04:41 2015
New Revision: 220520
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220520&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/63566
* i386.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64377
--- Comment #20 from Martin Liška ---
Can I please ask someone to confirm that the patch works and mark this issue as
resolved?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64984
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'll have a look tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64377
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64978
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Reduced testcase for comment 4:
trippels@gcc20 test % cat VTableBuilder.ii
class A {
public:
A(int, int);
};
class B {
public:
void m_fn1(bool, const int *, int &);
unsigned m_fn2();
};
namespace
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64978
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
IPA lattices after constant propagation, before gcc_unreachable:
Lattices:
Node: void {anonymous}::C::m_fn3(A, unsigned int, const int*, int&)/10:
param [0]: TOP
ctxs: VARIABLE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64670
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #6)
> Created attachment 34628 [details]
> Updated test case (part 2/2): [aux file]
Missed to state:
This file 'implements' the "class LogListener" - however, the gen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64693
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6)
> A patch is posted at
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-01/msg02108.html
Hello.
I've just finished more sensitive patch for the issue and I've just restarted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64979
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 9 17:01:36 2015
New Revision: 220543
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220543&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/64979
* tree-stdarg.c (pass_stdarg::execute): Scan phi n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64813
--- Comment #20 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Full regtesting just completed. Unless pr64982 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-02/msg00550.html are masking some
latent bug introduced by the patch, it does not seem to introduce any
regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64985
Bug ID: 64985
Summary: Default Scalar Storage Order Fails when an address is
associated with a record
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
Bug ID: 64986
Summary: class_to_type_4.f90: valgrind error: Invalid
read/write of size 8
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63205
--- Comment #12 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Reopening, something is wrong with the testcase:(In reply to Paul Thomas from
comment #11)
> Fixed on trunk, aka 5.0.0
The added testcase fails with valgrind due to memory errors, please see
PR64986.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63205
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63513
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-apple-darwin13.4.0
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60159
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-* x86_64-*-*
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60244
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63652
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hasn't this been fixed or at least the patch submitted to fix them?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64982
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hmm, I see. The problem is that asm_out.can_output_mi_thunk now needs to walk
alias to know what ABI the callee function uses and aliases are not analyzed at
this point. I solved similar issue in cgraphunit, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64985
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63492
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63492
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63451
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64987
Bug ID: 64987
Summary: alignas(N) (and __attribute__(__aligned__(N))) ignored
on enum specifiers
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63693
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|U
1 - 100 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
