https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41949
Prasad H. L. changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hlprasu at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64190
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|testsuite |ipa
--- Comment #1 from John David A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64190
Bug ID: 64190
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/pr63551.c (test for excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
HI,
I have a piece of code at "http://goo.gl/r2ySE6";
Refer to the code, with option of "-O2 -std=c++1y", when we comment
out the statement "id;" clang-3.4.1 compiles the code
successfully, but g++-4.9.0 compiles failed, where g++ complains that
"unresolved overloaded function type", which in tur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42734
--- Comment #46 from Damien Buhl (daminetreg)
---
As a pretier alternative you can use boost::thread with boost::atomic as
backend as we did in a yocto cross toolchain with the same issue where latomic
also segfaulted.
Cheers
fenixk19 at mail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64189
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|hjl at gcc dot gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64189
--- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Dec 4 23:53:24 2014
New Revision: 218408
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218408&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Always define HAVE_LD_PIE_COPYRELOC
PR bootstrap/64189
* c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64189
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
I am now at stage2 with the patch. So it seems to work. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64189
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 34194
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34194&action=edit
A patch
Please try this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64189
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail dot
com
Target Mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64189
Bug ID: 64189
Summary: [5.0 Regression] r218397 breaks bootstrap on darwin.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63613
--- Comment #11 from David Malcolm ---
Patch posted as https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00468.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64187
--- Comment #3 from Brian ---
Thanks for the speedy reply. I just added a comment on the bug. Maybe
-Wall should catch this kind of thing?
thanks again
brian
pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6418
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64166
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Patches posted as:
* https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00466.html
(non-JIT part, needs review)
* https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00467.html (JIT-specific
part)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64187
--- Comment #2 from Brian ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> char *test = "this is a test";
>
>
> This is a string literal so it stored in constant memory and which is why
> you are getting a segfault.
I was thinking "test"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63854
--- Comment #26 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Thu Dec 4 21:23:57 2014
New Revision: 218404
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218404&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR jit/63854: Fix double-initialization within tree-pretty-print.c
gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63888
--- Comment #8 from Kostya Serebryany ---
(sorry for delay, I missed the last comment)
> Generally, we do want to instrument even artificial variables, and on many
> of them buffer overflow is possible.
Yea, agree.
>
> > I.e. is a buffer over
_link
FAIL: gcc (GCC) 5.0.0 20141204 (experimental)
<63> DW_AT_static_link : 2 byte block: 91 68 (DW_OP_fbreg: -24)
PASS: gcc (GCC) 4.9.3 20141204 (prerelease)
(2)
echo 'int main(void) { void func (void) {} void (*p) (void) = func; return 0;
}'|gcc -g -Wtrampolines -x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55901
--- Comment #6 from Harald Anlauf ---
Any news on this one?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63854
--- Comment #25 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Thu Dec 4 21:11:04 2014
New Revision: 218403
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218403&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR jit/63854: Fix leak of ipa hooks
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR jit/63854
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62296
--- Comment #4 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #3)
> One might be able to do better on any reasonable Unix/Linux system.
Replying to myself: Intel has changed/fixed their implementation of
EXECUTE_COMMAND_LINE in v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53379
--- Comment #16 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #15)
> While if we use -fsanitize=address (at greatly increased cost), we actually
> get a Christmas tree with losts of colourful lights:
I cannot use ASAN on an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64080
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64029
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64029
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Dec 4 20:37:30 2014
New Revision: 218402
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218402&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/64029
* decl.c (grok_reference_init): Complete array type.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64080
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Dec 4 20:37:24 2014
New Revision: 218401
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218401&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/64080
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_store_expression): Handle non
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64167
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
--- Comment #20 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Ilya, it's the function call in this code I think:
(cond [(eq_attr "length_nobnd" "!0")
(plus (symbol_ref ("ix86_bnd_prefixed_insn_p (insn)"))
(attr "length_nobnd"))
You're c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
--- Comment #19 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I was thinking more along the lines of documented in the texi documention for
Length attributes.Useful to have in sh.md, but better documented in a
location that is more likely to be read.
I don't thin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64187
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
--- Comment #18 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke ---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #17)
> If I understand the problem correctly the root is in attempt to get length
> of following instructions computing length for forwrad jump instruction.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
--- Comment #17 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke from comment #13)
>
> AFAICS, the length attribute was broken in r217125
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2014-11/msg00133.html
If I understand the problem correctly th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64187
Bug ID: 64187
Summary: Writing to a char array cast from a char * causes a
segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64080
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ai.azuma at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64106
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64163
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64186
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42734
--- Comment #45 from Alexander Varnin ---
(In reply to Damien Buhl (daminetreg) from comment #44)
While given test works properly with -latomic on my installation, my
application doesn't. It fails with segfault in approximately half of launches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64186
--- Comment #2 from Michael Chapman ---
I think you are right. Geez you need to be a lawyer to understand this
sometimes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56917
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56917
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Dec 4 19:20:12 2014
New Revision: 218395
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218395&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/56917
* fold-const.c (fold_unary_loc): Perform th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64186
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>My interpretation of the C99 conversion rules is that the conversion to
>unsigned short
You are incorrect, the conversion rules never convert to anything smaller than
int.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64186
Bug ID: 64186
Summary: Conversion of signed to unsigned of same rank not
performed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
--- Comment #15 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Just to be clear, that was a "Damn" as in "Damn good find", sorry if it came
out the wrong way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org |enkovich.gnu at gmail
dot com
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64180
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63937
--- Comment #9 from Yvan Roux ---
Author: yroux
Date: Thu Dec 4 18:19:01 2014
New Revision: 218390
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218390&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
2014-12-04 Yvan Roux
Backport from trunk r216996, r216998, r21699
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63442
--- Comment #7 from Yvan Roux ---
Author: yroux
Date: Thu Dec 4 17:55:00 2014
New Revision: 218387
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218387&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-04 Yvan Roux
Backport from trunk r216765.
2014-10-27 Jion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63173
--- Comment #10 from Yvan Roux ---
Author: yroux
Date: Thu Dec 4 17:46:32 2014
New Revision: 218385
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218385&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-04 Yvan Roux
Backport from trunk r216630.
2014-10-24 Fel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64172
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Hmm, is passing vectors around when vector instructions are not present
> expected to work?
All you need to conform to the VFP AAPCS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64172
--- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmm, is passing vectors around when vector instructions are not present
expected to work?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64172
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm-none-linux-gnueabi |arm-none-linux-gnueabi,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64172
--- Comment #6 from Siarhei Siamashka ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #4)
> I can't reproduce with -O2 and -mfpu=neon.
> Can you please give the exact configuration of your GCC?
> The output of 'arm-none-linux-gnueabi-gcc -v' should be goo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61591
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64019
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64183
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64172
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I can't reproduce with -O2 and -mfpu=neon.
Can you please give the exact configuration of your GCC?
The output of 'arm-none-linux-gnueabi-gcc -v' should be good
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64172
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64185
Bug ID: 64185
Summary: Optimized code gives unexpected results
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59593
--- Comment #7 from fyang at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: fyang
Date: Thu Dec 4 15:15:57 2014
New Revision: 218376
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218376&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-11-20 Ramana Radhakri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63210
--- Comment #6 from Yvan Roux ---
Author: yroux
Date: Thu Dec 4 14:19:00 2014
New Revision: 218368
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218368&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
2014-12-04 Yvan Roux
Backport from trunk r215540.
2014-09-24
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64184
Bug ID: 64184
Summary: error: '_SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN' undeclared (first use in
this function)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64056
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> So fixed?
Not completely: unlike Solaris 11, Solaris 10 lacks stpcpy in libc, thus
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/chkp-strlen-2.c (test for excess erro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61749
--- Comment #7 from Yvan Roux ---
Author: yroux
Date: Thu Dec 4 13:25:10 2014
New Revision: 218358
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218358&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
2014-12-04 Yvan Roux
Backport from trunk r215046.
2014-09-09
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64183
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64183
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Which is
(instantiate_scev
(instantiate_below = 10)
(evolution_loop = 2)
(chrec = (24 - (unsigned int) prephitmp_36) / 8)
(res = (24 - (unsigned int) prephitmp_36) / 8))
(set_nb_iterations_in_loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61591
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
> Recently I rewrote the implementation of -fsanitize=unreachable and now I
> get an Illegal instruction on the testcase attached. So is there anything
> else to d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64183
--- Comment #2 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> It works correctly for
>
> int bits;
>
> void
> test ()
> {
> while (bits < (unsigned int)25)
> bits += 8;
> }
Right. But shift operator in the attache
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42734
--- Comment #44 from Damien Buhl (daminetreg)
---
On a yocto built cross-toolchain adding -latomic didn't help. This may
be due to the yocto cross-toolchain built without the support for some
reason.
I'll explorate it in deeper details.
On 12/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42734
--- Comment #43 from Alexander Varnin ---
And I also confirm that adding -latomic to build options fixes the issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64183
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Priority|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64183
Bug ID: 64183
Summary: [5.0 Regression] Complete unroll doesn't happen for a
while-loop
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64172
--- Comment #3 from Siarhei Siamashka ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> So it works with GCC 4.8?
Yes, the testcase works with GCC 4.8. It started to fail only with GCC 4.9 and
only on ARM hardware. Originally reported at
https:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64182
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64182
Bug ID: 64182
Summary: [5 Regression] wide-int rounding division is broken
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63917
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64167
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64172
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54819
Nagaraju Mekala changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nmekala at xilinx dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64100
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Kai Tietz ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61664
Nagaraju Mekala changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nmekala at xilinx dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64181
Bug ID: 64181
Summary: 'noexcept' on a lambda sometimes appears to get
optimised away at -O2 (or above).
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64167
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to John David Anglin from comment #3)
> Introduced in r218208 on 4.9:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2014-12/msg00015.html
>
> Also present on trunk.
Can you please check that it is not a duplic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63985
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56493
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 4 09:48:54 2014
New Revision: 218347
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218347&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/56493
* convert.c (convert_to_real, convert_to_expr, conve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56493
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 4 09:47:54 2014
New Revision: 218346
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218346&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/56493
* convert.c (convert_to_real, convert_to_expr, conve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56493
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 4 09:46:45 2014
New Revision: 218345
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218345&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/56493
* convert.c (convert_to_real, convert_to_expr, conve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
--- Comment #13 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #6)
> If I'm reading things right, this loop in shorten_branches populates
> insn_lengths[uid] in order of the NEXT_INSN () iteration:
>
> int (*length_fun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64145
--- Comment #5 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Thu Dec 4 08:46:03 2014
New Revision: 218342
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218342&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/64145
* gcc.dg/graphite/isl-codegen-loo
90 matches
Mail list logo
