https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60226
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60226
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Jul 8 05:38:12 2014
New Revision: 212346
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212346&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/60226
* fold-const.c (round_up_loc): Change the parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61741
--- Comment #2 from Zhendong Su ---
(In reply to Andi Kleen from comment #1)
> char c = 0;
> for (; a; a--)
> for (; c >= 0; c++);
>
> Don't you rely on signed overflow which is undefined?
No, there is no signed overflow since the variab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61741
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
--- Comment
version 4.10.0 20140707 (experimental) [trunk revision 212329] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O2 small.c; a.out
1
$ gcc-4.9 -O3 small.c; a.out
1
$
$ gcc-trunk -O3 small.c; a.out
0
$
-
int printf (const char *, ...);
int a, b, c, e, f, g, h, i, j, k;
int d[1];
int
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.10.0 20140707 (experimental) [trunk revision 212319] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O0 -c foo.c
$ gcc-trunk -O0 -c main.c
$ gcc-trunk -Os main.o foo.o
$ a.out
0
$
$ gcc-trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61740
Bug ID: 61740
Summary: Fixes for minor problems in asm_fprintf and
output_asm_insn
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61382
--- Comment #15 from Brooks Moses ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
[...]
> * g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist86.C (main): Initialize i.
[...]
Aha ... yes, that would do it. And, indeed, I can confirm that this fixes the
failures I wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45289
Rich Felker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugdal at aerifal dot cx
--- Comment #11 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61739
Bug ID: 61739
Summary: __builtin_printf optimization conflicts with POSIX
semantics
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21334
--- Comment #48 from Patrick J. LoPresti ---
Was this ever fixed? I do not see any mention of it in
https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/changes.html nor 4.8/changes.html nor
4.7/changes.html nor...
In any event, "suspended" seems like the wrong status f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61648
--- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
I need a tool like PROCESSING_REAL_TEMPLATE_DECL_P except for specializations
in that it is true only for the most recent or latest or innermost declaration.
I need a replacemen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61389
--- Comment #7 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Add a dependency: 44317
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44317
At least it's closely related.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61389
--- Comment #6 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Created attachment 33085
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33085&action=edit
Basic patch for C error messages in C++
This needs building and testing (and a te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61459
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jul 7 20:00:49 2014
New Revision: 212338
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212338&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-07-07 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/61459
PR fortran/58883
* t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61459
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jul 7 20:04:05 2014
New Revision: 212339
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212339&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-07-07 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/61459
PR fortran/58883
* t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58883
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jul 7 20:04:05 2014
New Revision: 212339
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212339&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-07-07 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/61459
PR fortran/58883
* t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58883
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jul 7 20:00:49 2014
New Revision: 212338
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212338&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-07-07 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/61459
PR fortran/58883
* t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61389
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't have time to work on this, so feel free to take it - thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61389
--- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Do you want me to merge my variadic macro language and your final whole-string
version (I had started on a %s solution too ;o))?
Or are you on a roll?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61389
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 33084
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33084&action=edit
Adjust diagnostics according to language mode
To help translators this should replace whole strings not just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61389
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I have a patch for replacing all the mentions of C99 with C++03 or C++11 but it
needs a little more work to be translation-friendly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61389
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Here is a shot at the language of variadic macro arguments in macro.c:
Index: macro.c
===
--- macro.c (revisi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61694
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
*** Bug 61698 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61712
--- Comment #17 from Richard Earnshaw ---
*** Bug 61694 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61694
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61694
--- Comment #7 from Richard Earnshaw ---
*** Bug 61701 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61700
Bug ID: 61700
Summary: thumb1_reorg crashes
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: RESOLVED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61701
Bug ID: 61701
Summary: thumb1_reorg crashes
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: RESOLVED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61694
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw ---
*** Bug 61700 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61694
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw ---
*** Bug 61699 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61699
Bug ID: 61699
Summary: thumb1_reorg crashes
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: RESOLVED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61698
Bug ID: 61698
Summary: thumb1_reorg crashes
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: RESOLVED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61694
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw ---
*** Bug 61697 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61697
Bug ID: 61697
Summary: thumb1_reorg crashes
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: RESOLVED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61696
Bug ID: 61696
Summary: thumb1_reorg crashes
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: RESOLVED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61694
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
*** Bug 61696 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61695
Bug ID: 61695
Summary: thumb1_reorg crashes
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: RESOLVED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61694
Bug ID: 61694
Summary: thumb1_reorg crashes
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61732
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The error happens outside the immediate context.
See http://stackoverflow.com/a/15261234/981959
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59850
--- Comment #30 from Andi Kleen ---
Please don't invent your own syntax for this. Use the one that has been widely
deployed for years. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61738
Bug ID: 61738
Summary: ICE using template template parameters and template
aliases
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61732
--- Comment #4 from Joaquín M López Muñoz ---
I see. The following is slightly off-topic, so please tell me if you can carry
on the discussion offline. Why is such an instantiation error not
SFINAE-protected in the following example?
template st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61735
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61737
--- Comment #2 from dhowells at redhat dot com ---
This also appears to occur for --target=sh64-linux on an unpatched gcc tree.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61735
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61732
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Joaquín M López Muñoz from comment #2)
> Umm... This is not how I read [class]/3 (no mention to instances there).
That refers to classes. in Your original example derived is not a class, it's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61734
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61737
--- Comment #1 from dhowells at redhat dot com ---
I needed the following change to gcc (courtesy of Nick Clifton) to get cris-gcc
to build at all, even without libgcc:
Index: gcc/config.gcc
==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61737
Bug ID: 61737
Summary: ICE when building libgcc for cris cross-compiler
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60105
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|Andrey.E.Antipov at gmail dot com |
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60686
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61734
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58898
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58898
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Jul 7 14:17:17 2014
New Revision: 212331
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212331&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-07-07 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/58898
* g++.dg/pars
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61736
Bug ID: 61736
Summary: Conditional expression yields wrong value category
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58898
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini ---
This is already fixed mainline and 4.9.1. I'm adding the testcase and closing
the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42361
Bug 42361 depends on bug 41936, which changed state.
Bug 41936 Summary: Memory leakage with allocatables and user-defined operators
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41936
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41936
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41936
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|pault at gcc dot gnu.org |dominiq at lps dot
ens.fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61629
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|m68k-*-*|m68k-*-*,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61735
Bug ID: 61735
Summary: basic_string bug when type_size is char.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61734
Bug ID: 61734
Summary: Regression in ABS_EXPR recognition
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61360
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61680
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
/* When we perform grouped accesses and perform implicit CSE
by detecting equal accesses and doing disambiguation with
runtime alias tests like for
.. = a[
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61732
--- Comment #2 from Joaquín M López Muñoz ---
Umm... This is not how I read [class]/3 (no mention to instances there). And,
moreover, if your interpretation was right then the following should compile
too:
struct X final{};
struct derived:X{};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41936
--- Comment #8 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Mon Jul 7 12:32:37 2014
New Revision: 212329
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212329&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-07-07 Dominique d'Humieres
Mikael Morin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56829
vincenzo Innocente changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Feature request: "generic" |Feature request: "generic"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61688
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
I think the PR has been fixed in the meanwhile. My guess is that the fix was
r212304.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51253
--- Comment #20 from christophe.lyon at st dot com ---
The problem was fixed by Jakub's commit 212289.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61733
Bug ID: 61733
Summary: Fatal error with -ftest-coverage
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61654
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Richard mentioned that #c7 doesn't ICE on the 4.9 branch, only trunk. This one
ICEs on the 4.9 branch too (the only change is " = 0", i.e. making A::a pure
virtual), again -O3 -m32 is needed:
struct A
{
v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61644
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61644
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61687
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61631
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61728
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61661
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61641
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61673
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61634
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61680
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61654
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61654
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
The reduced testcase doesn't ICE on the branch, the full preprocessed source
does.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61681
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61732
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58770
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #4)
> Sorry, I don't understand this. The #ifdef include-guards do prevent a
> second inclusion, even if done by a different file name, no?
No, including the f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61732
Bug ID: 61732
Summary: Derivation from final class incorrectly allowed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61677
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61719
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61731
Bug ID: 61731
Summary: Feature request: "generic" builtin for "conversion
operator" among vectors
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59850
--- Comment #29 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #26)
> > 2. __force itself presents a problem as its semantics isn't well defined and
> > only sparse knows how to model it. in gcc it cannot be an attribute as
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58770
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #3)
> I think the rationale for this code is that the #pragma must
> prevent a second inclusion, even if done by a different file
> name; whereas #ifdef exclusion do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61728
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61725
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The alternative to teach it about signed ranges could be something like
(untested):
--- tree-vrp.c.jj2014-06-24 09:38:12.0 +0200
+++ tree-vrp.c2014-07-07 11:26:30.308749523 +0200
@@ -3536,15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61725
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59361
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61725
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 33080
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33080&action=edit
gcc410-pr61725.patch
The easiest fix is IMHO to change builtins.def to match documentation.
Another possibility
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61725
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18950
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|bkoz at redh
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
