https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Feb 13 07:56:14 2015
New Revision: 220677
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220677&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/65040
* c-format.c (check_format_types): Don't warn about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65047
--- Comment #1 from Andrea Azzarone ---
Created attachment 34745
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34745&action=edit
Proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64823
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at redhat dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64705
--- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Since it works on gcc 3.4, so I consider this as a regression and applied the
patch. Should be fixed now.
Hi Vlad, could you please help me verify that the original benchmark is fixed
too? Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64705
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Fri Feb 13 05:44:46 2015
New Revision: 220676
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220676&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/64705
* tree-ssa-loop-niter.h (exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64932
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Shapero ---
Everything works now, thanks Paul!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64956
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Feb 13 05:26:37 2015
New Revision: 220675
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220675&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/64956
* c-opts.c (c_common_post_options): Change flag_abi_v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32219
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32219
--- Comment #16 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Fri Feb 13 04:52:45 2015
New Revision: 220674
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220674&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl/32219
gcc/
* cgraphunit.c (cgraph_node::finalize_function):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64317
--- Comment #10 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #8)
> And for GCC 5, ISTM the question that hasn't been answered, particularly
> with regard to the second reproducer is whether or this is a regression for
> the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64317
--- Comment #9 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #7)
> Vlad,
>
> What's the rationale behind the 50% probability cutoff for forming an EBB?
> For the purposes of inheritance, ISTM you want the biggest EBBs possi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So we don't thread this case because of the limits we place on the number of
statements in the duplicated block.
If --param max-jump-thread-duplication-stmts=16 is added to the command line,
jump threading
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64823
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57822
--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Feb 13 02:57:03 2015
New Revision: 220673
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220673&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-12 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/57822
* gfortran/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alserkli at inbox dot ru
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64823
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51252
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49316
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|alpha-dec-osf5.1b |
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65048
Bug ID: 65048
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE in add_phi_args_after_copy_edge, at
tree-cfg.c on arm-linux-gnueabihf
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Sigh. We can't do the propagation, even if we recognize the mw_9 default
definition represents an undefined value -- because doing so would result in a
use that is not dominated by its def.
We could do du
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65047
Bug ID: 65047
Summary: [c++17] Add support for nested namespace defintions.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49242
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44251
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64898
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #10 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32089
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64898
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Feb 12 22:44:38 2015
New Revision: 220666
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220666&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/64898
* mangle.c (write_mangled_name): Fix test for variabl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Kirill, you are correct WRT propagation of "b" for "i". Prior to DOM1 we have:
;; basic block 3, loop depth 1, count 0, freq 9100, maybe hot
;;prev block 2, next block 4, flags: (NEW, REACHABLE)
;;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14300
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20705
Bug 20705 depends on bug 14300, which changed state.
Bug 14300 Summary: -pthread doesn't define _REENTRANT in preprocessor on
alpha-linux
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14300
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64898
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65046
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64884
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65046
Bug ID: 65046
Summary: -Wabi-tag doesn't warn about variables or function
return types
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ABI
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64884
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 12 21:33:37 2015
New Revision: 220664
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220664&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/64884
* g++.dg/tm/pr47573.C: Only run on comdat_group effec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65000
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 12 21:30:56 2015
New Revision: 220663
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220663&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/65000
* g++.dg/ubsan/pr65000.C: New test.
Added:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64956
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65045
Bug ID: 65045
Summary: ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64935
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #13 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64980
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64317
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
And for GCC 5, ISTM the question that hasn't been answered, particularly with
regard to the second reproducer is whether or this is a regression for the
overall performance of that code.
It's certainly poss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65044
Bug ID: 65044
Summary: ICE: SIGSEGV in contains_struct_check with
-fsanitize=address -fcheck-pointer-bounds
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64932
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64932
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Thu Feb 12 21:06:41 2015
New Revision: 220659
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220659&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-12 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/64932
* trans-stmt.c (gfc_tran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64317
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #7 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64935
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64966
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64959
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Feb 12 20:21:34 2015
New Revision: 220656
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220656&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/64959
* parser.c (lookup_literal_operator): Return all cand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64932
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Thu Feb 12 19:30:53 2015
New Revision: 220654
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220654&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-12 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/64932
* trans-stmt.c (gfc_tran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033
--- Comment #6 from Richard Henderson ---
(In reply to Bin Fan from comment #5)
> So after the fix, atomic_is_lock_free will always return 0 for
> size=3,align=1 atomic struct objects?
Yes.
> I understand currently libatomic tries to make an at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033
--- Comment #5 from Bin Fan ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #3)
> (In reply to Bin Fan from comment #0)
> > 2. g++ tries to make lock-free property per-type, but the libatomic.so
> > implementation does not match.
>
> This. We alway
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65042
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Yeah, the default is 900. (C++11 recommends 1024 AFAIK.)
>From what I can see they used
/usr/lib64/ccache/g++ -v -save-temps -g3 -O0 -DDEBUG -ftemplate-depth-25
-DHAVE_CONFIG_H -pthread -Idefault/src/main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55541
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9/5 Regres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65042
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65042
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
What command line options are used?
With explicit -ftemplate-depth=25 (or even 27) it indeed fails, succeeds with
28, but the default is 900 AFAIK. Have those command line options changed in
any way since th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65042
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55541
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 12 18:09:59 2015
New Revision: 220650
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220650&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/55541
* cp-tree.h (BLOCK_OUTER_CURLY_BRACE_P): Define.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65042
--- Comment #2 from Matěj Cepl ---
Created attachment 34741
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34741&action=edit
preprocessed file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #12 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I should add that for purposes of Go, it's not all that important that
libbacktrace does not yet handle sibling calls, because the Go compiler turns
on -fno-optimize-sibling-calls by default
(https://gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #11 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
libbacktrace is all about stack backtraces. It is not about handling
exceptions.
libbacktrace handles inlined calls and hand written trampolines, assuming the
DWARF information is correct. libbacktrace
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65043
Bug ID: 65043
Summary: Expected narrowing conversion during list
initialization of bool from double
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64930
--- Comment #12 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #9)
> My point was that if you write a testcase that specifically tests for
> consume and get acquire code then that is a fail. The code generated is
> using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64224
mshawcroft at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64984
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64984
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 12 15:38:33 2015
New Revision: 220649
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220649&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/64984
* except.c (check_noexcept_r): Return NULL for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65042
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64275
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42575
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64797
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think this is probably a bug in the test. I was expecting "Stop\\xff\\xff" to
cause a conversion error, but it is successfully converted to a wide string.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65042
Bug ID: 65042
Summary: gcc5 has a template depth problem that was fine in
gcc4
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994
--- Comment #9 from Momchil Velikov ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg00659.html(In reply to Jakub
Jelinek from comment #8)
> Have you pinged your patch? If a patch isn't reviewed within a week or two,
> you should ping it on gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39589
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65041
Bug ID: 65041
Summary: Improve -Wclobbered
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64443
Tejas Belagod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65012
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Another example, with a function template:
struct s
{
static int i;
};
template
int s()
{
return s::i;
}
p.cc: In function ‘int s()’:
p.cc:9:10: error: ‘s’ is not a class, namespace, or enumeration
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55342
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The #c10 issue went away with r204212 I believe.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|mjambor at suse dot cz |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63607
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65003
--- Comment #8 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
*** Bug 65031 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65031
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65030
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65003
--- Comment #7 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
*** Bug 65030 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65027
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65003
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
*** Bug 65035 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65035
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65003
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65036
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65032
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62630
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64930
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64930
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 12 13:14:47 2015
New Revision: 220646
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220646&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/64930
* gcc.target/powerpc/atomic-p7.c: Adjust expec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65032
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61047
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
*** Bug 64990 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64990
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
