https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70421
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #3)
> Is the fact that the useless cast in:
> x ^= ((v16si)v)[u[0]];
> changes the generated code (makes it significantly worse at all opt levels)
> worth creating a P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70421
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70433
Bug ID: 70433
Summary: backslashes lost in dot file
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #7)
> Reverted the patch due to bootstrap problems on some targets.
>
> Martin, have you tried just building with -fmerge-all-constants? That
> should provide the effe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70421
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 38114
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38114&action=edit
gcc6-pr70421.patch
Full patch I'm going to bootstrap/regtest.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70433
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 38115
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38115&action=edit
tentative patch
Using this patch, we get in the dot file:
...
printf\ (\"\\\"%s\\\"\",\ &__FUNCTION__
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70429
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
Arnd Bergmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arnd at linaro dot org
--- Comment #9 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70429
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70405
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70353
Bug 70353 depends on bug 70422, which changed state.
Bug 70422 Summary: [6 regression] Bootstrap comparison failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70422
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70422
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266
Bug 64266 depends on bug 70422, which changed state.
Bug 70422 Summary: [6 regression] Bootstrap comparison failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70422
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70421
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70420
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-darwin
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70417
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70415
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47785
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincent.riviere at freesbee
dot fr
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70414
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70407
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70405
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70432
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70424
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70424
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Err
Index: gcc/ipa-prop.c
===
*** gcc/ipa-prop.c (revision 234453)
--- gcc/ipa-prop.c (working copy)
*** ipa_compute_jum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
--- Comment #10 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 38118
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38118&action=edit
Proposed patch
Hi Arnd,
This patch fixes your particular test case, but I am not sure if it will
handle all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70405
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Started with r226051.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70434
Bug ID: 70434
Summary: adding an extraneous cast to vector type results in
different code
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70434
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.4
Summary|adding an extran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70421
--- Comment #6 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> (In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #3)
> > Is the fact that the useless cast in:
> > x ^= ((v16si)v)[u[0]];
> > changes the generated code (makes it signific
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
--- Comment #11 from Arnd Bergmann ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #10)
> Created attachment 38118 [details]
> This patch fixes your particular test case, but I am not sure if it will
> handle all of the ICEs in the kernel. Please c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564
--- Comment #23 from Richard Biener ---
So I tried to investigate why prediction doesn't fix this. In fact with the
following patch I get to a similar level of performance as with not folding
the conditional (notice append_to_statement_list_forc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener ---
Oh, and this is also another case where we end up with different out-of-SSA
coalescing desires + outcomes.
Sorted Coalesce list:
-(16562, 0) t_6 <-> t_105
-(16562, 1) ivtmp.101_80 <-> ivtmp.101_81
-(16562
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70424
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 29 12:36:39 2016
New Revision: 234517
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234517&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-29 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/70424
* ipa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70424
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.5, 6.0
Summary|[4.9/5/6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70424
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70435
Bug ID: 70435
Summary: section attribute of a function template is not
honored.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70418
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70418
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Even r104500 ICEs. But gcc34 compiles it fine:
$ gcc34 q.c -c
q.c: In function `main':
q.c:4: warning: structure defined inside parms
q.c:4: warning: anonymous struct declared inside parameter list
q.c:4: w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70407
--- Comment #2 from Dehuan Xin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Confirmed as a documentation issue. Note that
>
> typedef struct S_ { short f[3] __attribute((aligned(8))); } S;
>
> works (and increases sizeof (S_)).
So for a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70405
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70397
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #3 from ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70436
Bug ID: 70436
Summary: -Wmisleading-indentation missing warning
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70436
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note clang warns here:
pr70405-3.c:11:3: warning: add explicit braces to avoid dangling else
[-Wdangling-else]
else
^
and it warns regardless of the indentation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70422
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Presumably the C++ FE should have set DECL_IGNORED_P on the fname decl.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70436
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70436
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70436
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
Here's a prototype that seems to do the job. Whenever we see an unbraced if,
increment the counter. Whenever we see a compound statement, reset the
counter. Whenever we see an else, warn if counter > 1 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69875
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Mar 29 13:28:34 2016
New Revision: 234521
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234521&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM][5 Backport] PR target/69875 Fix atomic_loaddi expans
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70434
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70436
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Thanks. I could take care of the C FE side ;). But let's strike this in the
next stage1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69875
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Mar 29 13:32:37 2016
New Revision: 234522
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234522&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM][4.9 Backport] PR target/69875 Fix atomic_loaddi expa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69875
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70434
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.4
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67728
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70434
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70393
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69256
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67591
--- Comment #2 from Jiong Wang ---
*** Bug 69256 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70436
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka ---
Turns out the prototype is pretty broken :P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70434
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64177
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64177
--- Comment #2 from iverbin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Actually, only 3 tests require 2+ workers (they fail with export
CILK_NWORKERS=1):
FAIL: c-c++-common/cilk-plus/CK/spawning_arg.c
FAIL: c-c++-common/cilk-plus/CK/steal_check.c
FAIL: g++.dg/cilk-pl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64177
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Tue Mar 29 14:39:33 2016
New Revision: 234523
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234523&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR testsuite/64177] Audit Cilk Plus tests for CILK_NWORKERS=1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64177
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Assignee|tschwin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69890
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68724
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55914
Jaak Ristioja changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jaak at ristioja dot ee
--- Comment #9 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70436
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka ---
BTW according to a working implementation of this -Wdangling-else warning (not
the above broken one I prematurely posted), the only suspicious use of dangling
else (i.e. a use in which the indentation is off*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #18 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #17)
>
> I'm now testing this patch on sh-elf...
The GCC testsuite results look OK. However, CSiBE shows
sum: 3342539 -> 3351695+9156 / +0.273924 %
which is not so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70355
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Summary|[5/6 Regressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70437
Bug ID: 70437
Summary: [6 Regression] Instantiation loop with pair and
is_constructible
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70355
--- Comment #3 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Tue Mar 29 15:19:00 2016
New Revision: 234524
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234524&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/70355
* lower-subreg.c (simplify_subreg_concatn): Rejec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69391
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69890
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The problem is that some string functions are defined as inline functions
> using *_chk function variants. object_sizes pass transforms *_chk call
> into original function call in a regular case but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70438
Bug ID: 70438
Summary: result type of vector operations
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
The change to the assignment of p_22 is made by forwprop1.
It does create a situation where p_2 is live outside the loop and hides the CSE
opportunity, which may be the cause of the more significant differ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68695
--- Comment #25 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Tue Mar 29 16:20:39 2016
New Revision: 234527
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234527&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-29 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/68695
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69890
--- Comment #4 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/chkp-strlen-1.c 2016-01-20
> 19:08:43.0 +0100
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/chkp-strlen-1.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68695
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70397
--- Comment #4 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Tue Mar 29 16:54:24 2016
New Revision: 234528
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234528&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
2016-03-29 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70397
--- Comment #5 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Waiting one week for any new regressions introduced by this patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235
--- Comment #24 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Dominiq, I have tested as much as I can with several variations of values of
the float and all looks good. I am ready to approve your patch when you are.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70438
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
The result of a comparison is an "opaque" vector type, which can be converted
much more freely than a regular vector type, in case the guessed return type
doesn't exactly match the user's choice (it quickly dec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70438
--- Comment #2 from Mike Herrick ---
I think that's fine -- a note in the documentation to that effect (describing
what an "opaque" vector type is and what operations are allowed on it) should
suffice.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70405
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 29 17:33:52 2016
New Revision: 234529
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234529&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/70405
* ssa-iterators.h (num_imm_uses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70439
Bug ID: 70439
Summary: Incorrect DRAP check in ix86_expand_epilogue
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70436
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
Sum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70440
Bug ID: 70440
Summary: SEGV initializing a VLA with a smaller string
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70440
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69487
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16994
Bug 16994 depends on bug 70440, which changed state.
Bug 70440 Summary: SEGV initializing a VLA with a smaller string
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70440
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69487
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.9.3, 5.3.0, 6.0
--- Comment #4 from Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70436
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Schmidt ---
I suspect what broke it was git revision 0375a27521885.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68475
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70353
--- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Mar 29 18:40:02 2016
New Revision: 234530
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234530&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70353
gcc/
* tree-inline.c (remap_decls): Don't a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70353
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6 regression] ICE on |[5 regression] ICE on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70429
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 29 18:49:00 2016
New Revision: 234531
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234531&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/70429
* combine.c (simplify_shift_cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124
--- Comment #37 from Domani Hannes ---
With the new patch there is still a warning with this example:
=== 8< ===
int f(void);
int test(void)
{
int baz[4];
int q = 0;
int d, i, j, sum;
for (i = 0; i < 2; i++)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70422
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Created attachment 38121
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38121&action=edit
patch on top of the original patch
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> Presumably the C++ FE s
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
