https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63908
--- Comment #5 from leimaohui ---
Thanks,these patches do work.
I used gcc(master:7a542b16e34cfb40fe37fab74a119e80a1a55587) to do a test likes
below:
kernel : 3.14.19
ltp:20120903
| test |with these patches|remove these patches|
|sem02
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64239
--- Comment #4 from Tim Shen ---
Sorry, I was once thinking that we should always use
match_results::prefix().first as the "start position of a match". It's true for
regex_match and regex_search, but not true for regex_iterator. That's why
match_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64260
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64261
Bug ID: 64261
Summary: false branch of conditional operator ?: evaluated in a
template constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62151
--- Comment #15 from bin.cheng ---
Hmm, words on tem_insn issue at the end of comment #12 isn't mature. It's more
complicated than that.
Turns out live range of register which is noted as DEAD in i1/i2 can be
extended because we propagate its u
version 5.0.0 20141210 (experimental) [trunk revision 218559] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O0 small.c; a.out
$ gcc-4.9 -O1 small.c; a.out
$
$ gcc-trunk -O1 small.c
$ a.out
Aborted (core dumped)
$
int a = 1, b;
void
fn1 (char p)
{
int t = 0;
for (; b < 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64259
Bug ID: 64259
Summary: Erroneous "declaration 'struct ...' does not declare
anything" when using "typename"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64248
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58969
--- Comment #2 from Richard Smith ---
(In reply to Kai Tietz from comment #1)
> Hmm, issue seems to be in too restrictive decl_maybe_constant_var_p function.
I don't know how the GCC code is structured, but I don't think that's right;
that funct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57510
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63674
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Another test case, this time for a PPC pointing to a subroutine:
module test
interface
subroutine sub_interface ( )
end subroutine
end interface
type :: t
procedure(sub_interf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63674
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Test case for ordinary procedure pointers:
module test
interface
function func_interface ( ) RESULT( reslt )
INTEGER :: reslt
end function func_interface
end interface
contain
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58969
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63674
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61258
Chris Manghane changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61246
Chris Manghane changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64258
Bug ID: 64258
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (on loop
optimization?)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63736
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61316
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Wed Dec 10 20:38:13 2014
New Revision: 218606
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218606&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/61316
compiler: Don't lower multi-valued arguments into t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59278
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64002
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63986
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64000
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58969
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64253
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
> The issue is probably latent on branches (where nobody cares though).
Yep, inliner builds loop structure since about 4.5. Until now it however did
not confuse any of the
other IPA passes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62021
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64252
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62021
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 10 20:02:19 2014
New Revision: 218604
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218604&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/62021
* omp-low.c (simd_clone_adjust_return_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62021
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 10 20:01:12 2014
New Revision: 218603
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218603&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/62021
* omp-low.c (simd_clone_adjust_return_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64252
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 10 19:59:57 2014
New Revision: 218602
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218602&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/64252
* config/i386/i386.c (expand_vec_perm_pblendv): If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61204
Chris Manghane changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63854
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64257
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |critical
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64206
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63896
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64180
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Dec 10 18:37:58 2014
New Revision: 218595
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218595&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/64180
* config/rs6000/predicates.md (unsigned_comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64180
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Dec 10 18:36:18 2014
New Revision: 218594
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218594&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/64180
* config/rs6000/predicates.md (adde_operand)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64180
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Dec 10 18:33:26 2014
New Revision: 218593
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218593&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/64180
* config/rs6000/rs6000.md (*add3_internal1):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64180
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Dec 10 18:32:15 2014
New Revision: 218592
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218592&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/64180
* config/rs6000/rs6000.md (*add3_internal1):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64180
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Dec 10 18:31:15 2014
New Revision: 218591
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218591&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/64180
* config/rs6000/rs6000.md (*ctr_internal1, *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64180
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Dec 10 18:30:07 2014
New Revision: 218590
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218590&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/64180
* config/rs6000/darwin.md (macho_low_si): Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64180
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Dec 10 18:28:57 2014
New Revision: 218589
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218589&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/64180
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (TARGET_MD_ASM_CLOB
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64257
Bug ID: 64257
Summary: JIT documentation is not yet on the GCC website
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: jit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64255
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||63917
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60955
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63896
howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at bromo dot med
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64255
--- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #7)
> > -fno-if-conversion seems to help.
>
> Then this is most likely a Dup of another bug which has a few versio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64255
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #9 from And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
--- Comment #16 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Dec 10 17:46:33 2014
New Revision: 218587
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218587&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-10 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline:
2014-12-09
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64255
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I had:
__attribute__((noinline, noclone))
void
bar (long i, unsigned long j)
{
if (i != 1 || j != 1)
__builtin_abort ();
}
__attribute__((noinline, noclone))
void
foo (long i)
{
unsigned long j;
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8 Regression] FAIL: |[4.8/4.9/5 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64255
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
-fno-if-conversion seems to help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64255
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
A better version:
void __attribute__ ((noinline, noclone))
bar (long int i)
{
asm ("");
}
int __attribute__ ((noinline, noclone))
f (long i)
{
if (i == 0)
return 0;
else
{
unsigned long
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48026
Frank changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||f.boesing at gmx dot de
--- Comment #3 from Fran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64255
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|WAIT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57689
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64061
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64256
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If I manually #undef DBX_CONTIN_LENGTH in dbxout.c before the default in there,
I get:
.stabs
"E:T(0,21)=eEE10:0,EE11:1,EE12:2,EE13:3,\\",128,0,0,0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64035
--- Comment #4 from Jonas Platte ---
EDIT: Sorry for the noise, I didn't notice the summary change before.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64035
--- Comment #3 from Jonas Platte ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> But 4.7 rejects it so there is no version that works. How's it a regression?
Does the bug report imply this is a regression? If so, that was not
intentional.
failures32
# of expected failures8
# of unresolved testcases1
# of unsupported tests4081
/opt/gcc/build_w/gcc/xgcc version 5.0.0 20141210 (experimental) [trunk
revision 218584p27] (GCC)
The first failing tests are pr64254 and the fuse-caller-save* failing tests are
due to r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64255
--- Comment #4 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> Without the standalone test case we can't do much, unfortunately. Would you
> have at least the preprocessed source?
It was actually a standalone test case, b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
--- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Dec 10 16:52:29 2014
New Revision: 218586
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218586&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-10 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline:
2014-12-09
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64255
--- Comment #3 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
Created attachment 34243
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34243&action=edit
testcase part 2 (tst2.c)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64255
--- Comment #2 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
Created attachment 34242
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34242&action=edit
testcase part 1 (tst1.c)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64182
--- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Makes sense. Will you also fix double-int.c when you are on this?
OK, I'll take the same approach there. I don't know how to test that
code "pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63832
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64256
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So are we talking about something like:
#define A(n) EE##n,
#define B(n) A(n##0) A(n##1) A(n##2) A(n##3) A(n##4) \
A(n##5) A(n##6) A(n##7) A(n##8) A(n##9)
#define C(n) B(n##0) B(n##1) B(n##2) B(n##3)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64100
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60955
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini ---
I think you are right. Now I wonder if the comment means that for the next
release series, aka current mainline, we can seriously try to remove the whole
conditional...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64239
--- Comment #3 from Mitsuru Kariya ---
Sorry, I confused the copy ctor with the copy assignment operator.
But it seems that both are same results.
operator= version : http://melpon.org/wandbox/permlink/ZHzYukOyuluuzpwu
I didn't notice, but both
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42108
--- Comment #64 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #63)
> Unfortunately for the testcase this doesn't allow moving the division at all
> and we are lucky that we have range information at all because of the fortran
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63845
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
*** Bug 63846 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63846
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64256
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Can you create a small non-gcc testcase that shows the dbxout.c deficiency
please?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64048
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Dec 10 15:47:30 2014
New Revision: 218585
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218585&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-10 Richard Biener
PR testsuite/64048
* gcc.dg/tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64056
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64048
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64256
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64256
Bug ID: 64256
Summary: [5.0 Regression] Pointer Bounds Checker builtins enum
overflows stabstring length
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63974
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64047
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64032
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64255
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63896
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #2 from Richard Bie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63787
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63986
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63891
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-self.c -O0 scan-assembler-not \\tcall
is also seen on i686-pc-linux-gnu with -fpic: see
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-12/msg01216.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63974
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63967
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #3 from Richard Bie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64255
Bug ID: 64255
Summary: failures with -O2 optimization on i >= 0 ? (unsigned
long) i : - (unsigned long) i
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63958
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60718
--- Comment #16 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Dec 10 15:29:19 2014
New Revision: 218584
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218584&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-10 Bernd Edlinger
PR fortran/60718
* trans-expr.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63892
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63891
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64182
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Makes sense. Will you also fix double-int.c when you are on this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63889
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Priority|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63852
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
1 - 100 of 209 matches
Mail list logo
