[Bug c/67377] gcc 6.0 fails to compile on Darwin 14

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67377 --- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter --- Ok, this was obviously fixed in r227282 2 hours after I checked out and tried to compile ;)

[Bug c++/67371] Never executed "throw" in constexpr function fails to compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67371 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Status|U

[Bug c++/66026] C++14] throw-expression is not a valid constant-expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66026 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/67371] Never executed "throw" in constexpr function fails to compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67371 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rhalbersma at gmail dot com --- Co

[Bug c++/67164] ICE: tree check: expected class ‘expression’, have ‘exceptional’ (argument_pack_select) in tree_operand_check, at tree.h:3356

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67164 --- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- (In reply to Louis Dionne from comment #4) > Still fails on trunk. Out of curiosity Markus, do you use software to reduce > test cases? Did you generate these A, B, ... structs yourself? I normally ju

[Bug tree-optimization/53852] [4.9/5/6 Regression] -ftree-loop-linear: large compile time / memory usage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53852 Joost VandeVondele changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2013-02-03 00:00:00 |2015-8-28 CC|

[Bug libstdc++/67362] std::regex("((.)", std::regex_constants::basic) throws

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67362 Tim Shen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/67362] std::regex("((.)", std::regex_constants::basic) throws

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67362 --- Comment #3 from Tim Shen --- Author: timshen Date: Fri Aug 28 03:39:53 2015 New Revision: 227291 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227291&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Backport from mainline 2015-08-28 Tim Shen PR lib

[Bug libstdc++/67362] std::regex("((.)", std::regex_constants::basic) throws

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67362 --- Comment #2 from Tim Shen --- Author: timshen Date: Fri Aug 28 03:03:55 2015 New Revision: 227290 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227290&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Backport from mainline 2015-08-28 Tim Shen PR lib

[Bug libstdc++/67362] std::regex("((.)", std::regex_constants::basic) throws

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67362 --- Comment #1 from Tim Shen --- Author: timshen Date: Fri Aug 28 02:35:21 2015 New Revision: 227289 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227289&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR libstdc++/67362 * include/bits/regex_scanner.tcc (_Scanner

[Bug target/67378] New: PowerPC unrecognizable insn (ICE in in extract_insn, at recog.c:2297)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67378 Bug ID: 67378 Summary: PowerPC unrecognizable insn (ICE in in extract_insn, at recog.c:2297) Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/66135] trailing return type error for generic lambda

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66135 Louis Dionne changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ldionne.2 at gmail dot com --- Comment #2

[Bug c/67377] gcc 6.0 fails to compile on Darwin 14

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67377 --- Comment #1 from Jürgen Reuter --- First remark from my side: the error with the missing /usr/install came from an incompletely installed MAC OS X command line tools, sorry for the digression.

[Bug c/67377] New: gcc 6.0 fails to compile on Darwin 14

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67377 Bug ID: 67377 Summary: gcc 6.0 fails to compile on Darwin 14 Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c A

[Bug c++/67376] New: Comparison with pointer to past-the-end of array fails inside constant expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67376 Bug ID: 67376 Summary: Comparison with pointer to past-the-end of array fails inside constant expression Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/67371] Never executed "throw" in constexpr function fails to compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67371 --- Comment #1 from Louis Dionne --- This is almost certainly a duplicate of #66026, yet it is still unconfirmed.

[Bug tree-optimization/37021] Fortran Complex reduction / multiplication not vectorized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021 --- Comment #23 from Bill Schmidt --- Created attachment 36261 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36261&action=edit tree-slp-details dump Ah, I was looking at the code in the test suite this time, rather than the raw posted cod

[Bug middle-end/63510] Wrong line number in Wstrict-overflow message

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510 --- Comment #9 from Chen Gang --- We need call warning_at() instead of warnings() in fold_overflow_warning() in gcc/fold-const.c. The related location parameter of warning_at() should be calculated, just like another gcc files has done: e.g. gcc

[Bug tree-optimization/67351] Missed optimisation on 64-bit field compared to 32-bit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67351 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Target|i?86|x86_64 CC|

[Bug fortran/67367] Program crashes on READ(IOSTAT=IOS, ...) on directory OPEN()ed without error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67367 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- C

[Bug c++/56958] Spurious set but not used variable warning in empty pack expansion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56958 Louis Dionne changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ldionne.2 at gmail dot com --- Comment #4

[Bug libstdc++/67375] New: abi::__cxa_demangle crashes demangling a lambda

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67375 Bug ID: 67375 Summary: abi::__cxa_demangle crashes demangling a lambda Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: lib

[Bug tree-optimization/37021] Fortran Complex reduction / multiplication not vectorized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021 --- Comment #22 from Bill Schmidt --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #21) > (In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #20) .. > > I see it only failing due to cost issues (tried ppc64le and -mcpu=power8). > The unaligned loads cost 3

[Bug c++/67164] ICE: tree check: expected class ‘expression’, have ‘exceptional’ (argument_pack_select) in tree_operand_check, at tree.h:3356

ure> copy(empty); } -- The command line and output (formatted to fit the report) are: -- > ~/code/gcc/prefix/bin/g++ --version g++ (GCC)

[Bug libstdc++/67374] std::cbegin can't call valarray range access functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67374 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Thu Aug 27 19:05:19 2015 New Revision: 227274 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227274&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR libstdc++/67374 * include/bits/range_access.h (valarra

[Bug libstdc++/67374] std::cbegin can't call valarray range access functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67374 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Version|4.9.4 |5.2.1 Target Milestone|---

[Bug target/67317] [x86] Silly code generation for _addcarry_u32/_addcarry_u64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67317 --- Comment #7 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Thu Aug 27 18:29:37 2015 New Revision: 227271 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227271&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/67317 * config/i386/i386.md (*add3_cc):

[Bug libstdc++/67374] New: std::cbegin can't call valarray range access functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67374 Bug ID: 67374 Summary: std::cbegin can't call valarray range access functions Product: gcc Version: 4.9.4 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: rejects-valid Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/67374] std::cbegin can't call valarray range access functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67374 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/67005] [5/6 Regression] ICE: in verify_loop_structure, at cfgloop.c:1647 (loop with header n not in loop tree)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67005 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/67005] [5/6 Regression] ICE: in verify_loop_structure, at cfgloop.c:1647 (loop with header n not in loop tree)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67005 --- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Thu Aug 27 17:07:35 2015 New Revision: 227268 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227268&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR middle-end/67005 * tree-ssa-dce.c (remove_dead_stmt)

[Bug tree-optimization/67283] GCC regression over inlining of returned structures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67283 --- Comment #11 from Xavier Roche --- PS: Shall I create a twin ticket for the structure case ?

[Bug tree-optimization/67283] GCC regression over inlining of returned structures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67283 --- Comment #10 from Xavier Roche --- The "Second test case" attached should produce exactly the same bytes (byte-to-byte) for the two demo_1 and demo_2 functions. And this would not rely on stack size that might change. With GCC 4.4.7: demo_2(

[Bug tree-optimization/67283] GCC regression over inlining of returned structures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67283 --- Comment #9 from Xavier Roche --- Created attachment 36260 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36260&action=edit Second test case (might be useful for unit testing)

[Bug tree-optimization/67283] GCC regression over inlining of returned structures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67283 alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug bootstrap/67373] New: Can't compile gcc snapshot for avr target with mingw

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67373 Bug ID: 67373 Summary: Can't compile gcc snapshot for avr target with mingw Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug lto/66752] spec2000 255.vortex performance compiled with GCC is ~20% lower than with CLANG

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66752 --- Comment #17 from Jeffrey A. Law --- The fix for the ppc64 bootstrap regression looks good. I'm just having a bear of a time producing a reasonable test for the regression suite.

[Bug tree-optimization/67283] GCC regression over inlining of returned structures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67283 --- Comment #7 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: alalaw01 Date: Thu Aug 27 15:40:10 2015 New Revision: 227265 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227265&root=gcc&view=rev Log: completely_scalarize arrays as well as records gcc/:

[Bug target/67366] Poor assembly generation for unaligned memory accesses on ARM v6 & v7 cpus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366 --- Comment #11 from Ramana Radhakrishnan --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #10) > On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366 > > > > --- Comment #9 from Richa

[Bug target/67366] Poor assembly generation for unaligned memory accesses on ARM v6 & v7 cpus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366 > > --- Comment #9 from Richard Earnshaw --- > Does that really do the right thing?

[Bug target/67366] Poor assembly generation for unaligned memory accesses on ARM v6 & v7 cpus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366 --- Comment #9 from Richard Earnshaw --- Does that really do the right thing? That is, does force_reg understand a misaligned memory op? Also, what if one memory operand is aligned, but the other not? Don't we want to have the right combinatio

[Bug c++/67372] New: Functions created via cp/decl2.c:start_objects not properly registered

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67372 Bug ID: 67372 Summary: Functions created via cp/decl2.c:start_objects not properly registered Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/67356] PowerPC insn does not satisfy its constraints

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67356 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/67356] PowerPC insn does not satisfy its constraints

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67356 --- Comment #2 from Alan Modra --- Author: amodra Date: Thu Aug 27 13:56:39 2015 New Revision: 227260 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227260&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [RS6000] Correct constraints for ior_mask ior_mask always splits to rtl mat

[Bug c++/67371] New: Never executed "throw" in constexpr function fails to compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67371 Bug ID: 67371 Summary: Never executed "throw" in constexpr function fails to compile Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pr

[Bug libstdc++/60734] Undefined behavior in g++-v4/bits/stl_tree.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60734 --- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Bhargava Shastry from comment #12) > a) and b) together imply that it is possible that _M_right points to an > object of type _Rb_tree_node_base when cast to _Link_type in [1]. Is this a > mat

[Bug libstdc++/60734] Undefined behavior in g++-v4/bits/stl_tree.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60734 --- Comment #12 from Bhargava Shastry --- Also, I noticed a couple of potentially suspicious casts not fixed upstream. They are in _S_right [1] and elsewhere. The problem I see is this: a. _M_right is a pointer to an object of type _Rb_tree_nod

[Bug libstdc++/60734] Undefined behavior in g++-v4/bits/stl_tree.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60734 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/60734] Undefined behavior in g++-v4/bits/stl_tree.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60734 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED

[Bug libstdc++/60734] Undefined behavior in g++-v4/bits/stl_tree.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60734 Bhargava Shastry changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bshastry at sec dot t-labs.tu-berl

[Bug c++/67370] Invalid "parameter packs not expanded" error in lambda capture

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67370 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- Almost certainly a dup of PR 64488 and PR 47226

[Bug c++/67370] New: Invalid "parameter packs not expanded" error in lambda capture

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67370 Bug ID: 67370 Summary: Invalid "parameter packs not expanded" error in lambda capture Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug ipa/67368] Inlining failed due to no_sanitize_address and always_inline conflict

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67368 --- Comment #2 from Yury Gribov --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > so it fails on purpose (not sure why though). And it ignores always-inline. > I wonder if we should, for always-inline functions, inline anyway and output > a war

[Bug target/67366] Poor assembly generation for unaligned memory accesses on ARM v6 & v7 cpus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366 --- Comment #8 from Ramana Radhakrishnan --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #7) > On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, ramana at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366 > > > > --- Comment #6 from Ramana Rad

[Bug target/67366] Poor assembly generation for unaligned memory accesses on ARM v6 & v7 cpus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, ramana at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366 > > --- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan --- > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from

[Bug target/67366] Poor assembly generation for unaligned memory accesses on ARM v6 & v7 cpus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366 --- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #3) > On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366 > > > > --- Comment #2 from Richard

[Bug ipa/67368] Inlining failed due to no_sanitize_address and always_inline conflict

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67368 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/67369] [5/6 Regression] ICE (in tsubst_decl, at cp/pt.c:11302) with -std=c++14

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67369 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |5.3

[Bug target/67366] Poor assembly generation for unaligned memory accesses on ARM v6 & v7 cpus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366 --- Comment #5 from Ramana Radhakrishnan --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #3) > On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366 > > > > --- Comment #2 from Richard

[Bug target/67366] Poor assembly generation for unaligned memory accesses on ARM v6 & v7 cpus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366 Ramana Radhakrishnan changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org --- Com

[Bug target/67366] Poor assembly generation for unaligned memory accesses on ARM v6 & v7 cpus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366 > > --- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comme

[Bug target/67366] Poor assembly generation for unaligned memory accesses on ARM v6 & v7 cpus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366 --- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > I think this boils down to the fact that memcpy expansion is done too late > and > that (with more recent GCC) the "inlining" done on the GIMPLE level is > re

[Bug lto/67357] -Wodr warnings from types in anonymous namespace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67357 --- Comment #3 from Roger Orr --- The following code block also gives an ODR violation with the same versions of gcc; in this case only a *single* translation unit is involved. $ cat test.cxx #include template class D : public T { using mf

[Bug target/67317] [x86] Silly code generation for _addcarry_u32/_addcarry_u64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67317 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Target|x86_64-*-* |x86 CC|uros at gcc dot gnu

[Bug target/67317] [x86] Silly code generation for _addcarry_u32/_addcarry_u64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67317 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at

[Bug c++/67369] [5/6 Regression] ICE (in tsubst_decl, at cp/pt.c:11302) with -std=c++14

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67369 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/67361] std::regex_error::what() should say something about the error_code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67361 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/67369] New: [5/6 Regression] ICE (in tsubst_decl, at cp/pt.c:11302) with -std=c++14

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67369 Bug ID: 67369 Summary: [5/6 Regression] ICE (in tsubst_decl, at cp/pt.c:11302) with -std=c++14 Product: gcc Version: 5.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/67368] New: Inlining failed due to no_sanitize_address and always_inline conflict

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67368 Bug ID: 67368 Summary: Inlining failed due to no_sanitize_address and always_inline conflict Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug bootstrap/67363] [6 Regression] r227188 breaks build for mingw-w64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67363 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0 Summary|r227188 breaks b

[Bug target/67366] Poor assembly generation for unaligned memory accesses on ARM v6 & v7 cpus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|