https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69524
Bug ID: 69524
Summary: [ICE] [F2008] Compiler segfaults on simple testcase @
-O0
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60526
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37499|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60526
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37495|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18154
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69461
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 37498
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37498&action=edit
Patch I'm testing to fix the bug
LRA wants harder than reload to avoid creating a stack slot to satisfy insn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65010
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #6)
> This is not the same. There is a difference between sign extension of
> arguments and sign extensions within a function.
This bug points out that values returne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from David Edelsohn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65010
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65010
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Last reconfirmed|2015-03-21 00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23450
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carrot at google dot com
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23450
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2007-07-01 00:47:09 |2016-1-27
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22271
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21913
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69523
--- Comment #2 from Eric Fiselier ---
@Andrew I'm a libc++ developer and I really like using compiler warnings when
developing and testing libc++. Using -isystem prevents this entirely. Normally
they are system headers but this is explicitly turn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69523
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
How about declaring those headers as system headers by using -isystem instead
of using -I :)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69523
Bug ID: 69523
Summary: -Wliteral-suffix should not warn within namespace std
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19746
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2005-05-09 01:18:53 |2016-1-27
CC|
per
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc/configure --prefix=/home/absozero/trunk/root-gcc
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160127 (experimental) [trunk revision 232874] (GCC)
$ time gcc-trunk abc1.c
^C
real21m50
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19705
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2006-03-05 03:12:14 |2016-1-27
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24208
--- Comment #9 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Thu Jan 28 01:06:29 2016
New Revision: 232912
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232912&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Low-hanging C++-lexer speedup (PR c++/24208)
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18900
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69521
Loïc Yhuel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||loic.yhuel at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69520
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69497
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18900
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18154
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-*-* |powerpc*-*-*
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68659
--- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #12)
> At revision 232901, this testcase still ICEs on i686 (or x86_64 with -m32)
> on Fedora 23:
>
> Running target unix/-m32
> FAIL: gcc.dg/graphite/id-pr45230-1.c (int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68659
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-*-*, arm*-*-* |powerpc-*-*, arm*-*-*,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17958
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2007-07-02 21:30:35 |2016-1-27
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68662
--- Comment #10 from Alan Modra ---
I guess rs6000 needs to implement targetm.override_options_after_change() if
we're to keep flag_pic and TARGET_RELOCATABLE consistent.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5372
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The PowerPC EABI document itself does not say anything about __eabi
or process startup (it even says there are no requirements).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69520
--- Comment #1 from Harald Anlauf ---
The patch in comment #0 regtests ok on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
Possible ChangeLog entry:
2016-01-27 ...
PR fortran/69520
* options.c: Enhance -fcheck by reversal of specifications.
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69484
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Jan 27 22:32:52 2016
New Revision: 232906
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232906&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-27 Janus Weil
PR fortran/69484
* inv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68662
--- Comment #9 from Alan Modra ---
For the testcase in comment #7, global_options are inconsistent (*) and wrong
when compiling foo. I see flag_pic == 2 there??
(*) In particular, TARGET_RELOCATABLE and flag_pic don't agree. See
config/rs6000/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69447
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69447
--- Comment #17 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #16)
> Fixed.
This patch is not going to the 5-branch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69447
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69447
--- Comment #15 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Wed Jan 27 22:08:02 2016
New Revision: 232905
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232905&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-opt/69447
* lra-remat.c (subreg_regs): New.
(dump_candidate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53341
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
With -std=c++0x included (until a few days ago on trunk),
which is what caused the difference.
I don't see _ZdlPv since 4.8.0 though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22238
--- Comment #22 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #20)
[...]
> I maintain my opinion that any user-facing diagnostic using %qE is
> potentially broken.
Thanks; I'm inclined to agree.
Notes to self: implementat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17381
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22238
--- Comment #23 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 37496
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37496&action=edit
Patch to fix the case in comment #12 (for next stage 1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69521
Bug ID: 69521
Summary: -Wdeprecated-declarations errors in unused inline
methods
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68763
--- Comment #17 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #15)
> > Does anyone have a reduced testcase for this?
>
> I've started delta and creduce, but it is boost, so it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69385
--- Comment #18 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Wed Jan 27 21:24:01 2016
New Revision: 232904
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232904&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-27 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/69385
* trans-expr.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66487
--- Comment #18 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #16)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> > (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #4)
> > > Actually, I guess checking for this is more of a fit for an uni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60526
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 37495
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37495&action=edit
provisional patch
The patch appears to work, but the formatting for the errors looks strange.
Consider:
ig25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69520
Bug ID: 69520
Summary: Implement reversal of -fcheck options
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69517
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69461
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66763
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67407
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69519
Bug ID: 69519
Summary: STV doesn't use xmm register for DImove move
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60526
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
Here is the AST dump.
Note the upcase letter in the symtree for the type.
We are probably missing an upcase string compare there...
Namespace: A-H: (REAL 4) I-N: (INTEGER 4) O-Z: (REAL 4)
procedure name =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68062
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68062
--- Comment #17 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Jan 27 20:31:00 2016
New Revision: 232903
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232903&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/68062
* c-typeck.c (build_binary_op) [EQ_EXPR, GE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68763
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #15)
> Does anyone have a reduced testcase for this?
I've started delta and creduce, but it is boost, so it will take a while (at
7.6MB so far).
> Jakub, where are w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66487
--- Comment #17 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #13)
> > Author: hubicka
> > Date: Wed Jan 13 23:47:45 2016
> > New Revision: 232356
> >
> > URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/view
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66487
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #4)
> > Actually, I guess checking for this is more of a fit for an uninitialized
> > read detector such as MemorySanitiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60526
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69512
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68986
--- Comment #18 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Jan 27 19:54:03 2016
New Revision: 232901
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232901&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Don't change stack_alignment_needed for __tls_get_addr
__tls_get_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67564
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Created attachment 37395 [details]
> A provisional patch for the PR
>
> This fixes the immediate problem. I think some tidying up of unlimited
> polymorphism is needed. In any case, I am not in a pos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24375
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68763
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill ---
Does anyone have a reduced testcase for this?
Jakub, where are we modifying the TREE_PURPOSE after creating the METHOD_TYPE?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68404
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
LTO is creating a clone of reg_save_code, specialized on a particular value of
parameter reg. The compiled code contains a badly formed address expression,
causing the segfault. Continuing to look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67281
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #10 from Peter Bergne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66869
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed for C so far, C++ still broken.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66869
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 27 19:32:49 2016
New Revision: 232899
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232899&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/66869
* c-decl.c (c_write_global_declarations_1):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62316
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68398
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68398
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed Jan 27 19:19:47 2016
New Revision: 232897
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232897&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/68398
* params.def (PARAM_FSM_SCALE_PA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16456
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68949
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 27 19:18:33 2016
New Revision: 232896
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232896&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/68949
* optimize.c (maybe_clone_body): Clear DECL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20906
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
With a slight change in the parse tree, we get a much better message.
prog.cc:3:38: error: wrong number of template arguments (0, should be 1)
template void foo::pop(bar<>&, int) {}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69131
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 27 19:18:28 2016
New Revision: 232895
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232895&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/69131
* method.c (walk_field_subobs): Add dtor_fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68062
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68062
--- Comment #15 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Jan 27 19:13:42 2016
New Revision: 232894
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232894&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/68062
* c-typeck.c (build_binary_op) [EQ_EXPR, GE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22238
--- Comment #21 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #19)
> /tmp/test2.cc:9:24: error: return-statement with a value, in function
> returning 'void' [-fpermissive]
> return P->bar() + *P;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20906
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|excessive diagnostic|excessive diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15767
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-*-linux-*, |
|powerpc-*-elf-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69518
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22238
--- Comment #20 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #19)
> Is it time to close this one out as fixed?
with gcc HEAD 6.0.0 20160127 and the testcase in comment #12, I get:
prog.cc: In member function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15767
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2004-06-01 22:33:42 |2016-1-27
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69126
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20906
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69126
--- Comment #16 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Wed Jan 27 18:57:51 2016
New Revision: 232893
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232893&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libcpp: use better locations for _Pragma tokens (preprocessor/69126)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69254
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69254
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 27 18:48:30 2016
New Revision: 232891
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232891&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/69254
* sanitizer.def: Add BEGIN_SANITIZER_BUILTIN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24375
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2006-01-15 21:05:21 |2016-1-27
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69385
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22238
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69518
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50045
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10778
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69447
--- Comment #14 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #13)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> > Without knowing the lra-remat code at all, I just wonder if subreg_regs
> > needs to be one per the whol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5372
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2004-01-02 06:15:10 |2016-1-27
CC|
ty: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 37493
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37493&action=edit
C source code
gcc trunk, dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66094
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- C
1 - 100 of 233 matches
Mail list logo
