https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78574
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78677
Bug ID: 78677
Summary: __gthread_key_create assumed not to fail in
eh_globals.cc
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #17 from Jim Wilson ---
I still haven't been able to reproduce this, but I do see a problem.
In the original bug report, the only difference is that the code uses x4 in the
first part of the diff, and x24 in the second part of the di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78676
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Try -fwrapv .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78610
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Nope, backports are needed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78342
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
No, we probably still want backports.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78676
--- Comment #2 from mecej4 at operamail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> This sounds like overflows are happening. Overflow in fortran is undefined.
Very much so, but integer overflow happens a lot in random number genera
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78610
--- Comment #3 from Arseny Solokha ---
Should this PR be closed now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78342
--- Comment #10 from Arseny Solokha ---
Should this PR be closed now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78676
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This sounds like overflows are happening. Overflow in fortran is undefined.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78676
Bug ID: 78676
Summary: Optimizer bug exposed by program with many bit
operations.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78675
Bug ID: 78675
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error:
integral result type precision does not match field
size of BIT_FIELD_REF)
Product: gcc
Ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17308
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78633
--- Comment #6 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
I've tried a bi-sect on git tree. The ICE went away with
commit c95f3fa2db12f22bbb2158d18c95f6714b4292b8
Author: krebbel
Date: Fri Dec 2 08:32:40 2016 +
Do not simplify "(and (reg) (const bit)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78534
--- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Note: PR66310 is a related issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78670
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78519
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, patch
--- Comment #2 from Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61460
--- Comment #3 from Mark Wielaard ---
The patch proposed in bug #70909 does prevent the infinite recursiong crashing
the demangler. But it doesn't demangle the symbol (just rejects it).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67738
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #38 from Mark Wielaard ---
For reference the symbols in comment #4 and the reduced case from comment #14
are fixed by the patch proposed for Bug 78252 - C++ demangler crashes with
infinite recursion with lambda (auto).
The patch prop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67264
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org
Depends
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68383
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org
Depends
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78674
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61805
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62279
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78534
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #40154|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45516
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39627
Bug 39627 depends on bug 45516, which changed state.
Bug 45516 Summary: [F08] allocatable compontents of recursive type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45516
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #33 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #30)
> It might even be a good idea to merge the two functions into one, in order
> to get rid of the code duplication. But I'm not sure if there are any
> obstacles
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78674
Bug ID: 78674
Summary: [cleanup] merge gfc_convert_type_warn and
gfc_convert_chartype
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #31 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Sun Dec 4 20:31:26 2016
New Revision: 243232
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243232&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-12-04 Janus Weil
PR fortran/78618
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #30 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #29)
> I'm now regtesting this:
No failures! Will commit this soon.
For gfc_convert_type_warn the changes are possibly not really necessary (since
it deals with no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69481
PeteVine changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tulipawn at gmail dot com
--- Comment #10 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #29 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm now regtesting this:
Index: gcc/fortran/intrinsic.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/intrinsic.c (revision 243224)
+++ gcc/fortran/intri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #28 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Do you mean gfc_convert_type_warn?
Yes, copy&paste with two left thumbs!-(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #27 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 07:17:52PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
>
> --- Comment #25 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Confirmed here too!
>
> Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #26 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #25)
> There is a similar construct for gfc_convert_chartype. Should not the same
> patch apply there too?
I guess you mean gfc_convert_type_warn? gf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #25 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Confirmed here too!
There is a similar construct for gfc_convert_chartype. Should not the same
patch apply there too?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #24 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #23)
> > This fixes the SIGSEGV on i686-*-freebsd. I'm starting
> > a full regression test now. I think you found the
> > solution!
>
> Regression testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #23 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 06:43:08PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
>
> This fixes the SIGSEGV on i686-*-freebsd. I'm starting
> a full regression test now. I think you found the
> sol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71537
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think we need __builtin_memchr et al to be usable in constant expressions,
because replacing them with hand-written loops would be a step backwards. For
uses outside constant expressions we want to go to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #22 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 06:01:29PM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
>
> --- Comment #21 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to janus from c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78673
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78673
Bug ID: 78673
Summary: sprintf missing attribute nonnull on destination
argument
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #21 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #20)
> So I guess one should find out where the symbol '__convert_s4_s1' obtains
> its charlen and prevent that from happening ...
I think that this is accomplishe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467
--- Comment #14 from Larry Baker ---
(In reply to Waldemar Brodkorb from comment #11)
> diff -Nur gcc.orig/libgcc/config.host gcc/libgcc/config.host
> --- gcc.orig/libgcc/config.host 2016-02-26 21:02:28.0 +0100
> +++ gcc/libgcc/config.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68700
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org
Depends
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70517
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org
Depends
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78668
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78284
Bug 78284 depends on bug 78668, which changed state.
Bug 78668 Summary: aligned_alloc, realloc, et al. missing attribute alloc_size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78668
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78668
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Sun Dec 4 17:48:44 2016
New Revision: 243231
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243231&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/78668 - aligned_alloc, realloc, et al. missing attribute alloc_size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #20 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Possibly the origin of the problem lies in the fact that the symbol
'__convert_s4_s1' gets a constant ts.u.cl of '1' after all?
IIUC __convert_s4_s1 is used to convert character strings of any len
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #19 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #18)
> On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 04:24:21PM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
> >
> > Maybe one can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45521
--- Comment #16 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #15)
> > Interpretation request F08/0001 / 10-145 changes this ("EDITS to 10-007")"
> >
> > '[286:4] In 12.4.3.4.5p3, after "the other has the POINTER attribute",
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78252
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org
Summa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45516
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #9)
> Paul, can we close this PR, or is there anything left to do?
ping!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #18 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 04:24:21PM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
>
> Maybe one can instead try to nullify the memory in gfc_free charlen, so that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78570
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78443
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78443
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Sun Dec 4 16:34:13 2016
New Revision: 243230
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243230&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-12-04 Janus Weil
Backport from trunk
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78226
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> It appears that the patch at
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-12/msg00040.html
>
> actually catches more errors than the original one.
Confirmed.
> Or it was fixed by your emit-rtl.c change.
I'm still seeing it on Solaris 10, 11 and 12 between 20161201 (r243113)
and 20161204 (r243227), both when using as and gas:
$ cc1 -fpreprocessed 20030917-1.i -quiet -mcpu=v9 -O3 -ftracer
-finline-functions -o 20030917-1.s
/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/lo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #17 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #16)
> Index: resolve.c
> ===
> --- resolve.c (revision 243227)
> +++ resolve.c (working co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78226
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
It appears that the patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-12/msg00040.html
actually catches more errors than the original one.
So, more cases to find... Nice thing is, one
fix can fix quite a large
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #16 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 10:07:16AM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
>
> --- Comment #15 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Steve Kargl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78443
--- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Sun Dec 4 16:00:27 2016
New Revision: 243229
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243229&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-12-04 Janus Weil
Backport from trunk
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70322
--- Comment #10 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Sun Dec 4 14:38:05 2016
New Revision: 243228
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243228&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70322
* config/i386/i386.c (dimode_scal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78672
Bug ID: 78672
Summary: Gfortran test suite failures with a sanitized compiler
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78669
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78671
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78633
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #1)
> Here is a trial patch
>
> diff --git a/config/sh/sh.md b/config/sh/sh.md
> index c6956a0..c83bf08 100644
> --- a/config/sh/sh.md
> +++ b/config/sh/sh.md
> @@ -858,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71537
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #7)
> Unfortunately, __builtin_memchr is not usable in constexpr contexts. Hardly
> any of these builtins are.
Can you explain why? Most of the builtins that can fold
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78226
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Current regressions with the patch at
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-12/msg00039.html :
>
> allocate_with_source_10.f08 allocate_with_source_11.f08
> ...
What are the failures? I have an ol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glaubitz at physik dot
fu-be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78226
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Current regressions with the patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-12/msg00039.html :
allocate_with_source_10.f08 allocate_with_source_11.f08
allocate_with_source_13.f03 allocate_with_source_14.f03
a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467
--- Comment #13 from Waldemar Brodkorb ---
Okay.
So what is your opinion, how we proceed here?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467
--- Comment #12 from Andreas Schwab ---
linux-atomic is independent of libc and libpthread, it implements compiler
intrinsics and only depends on the kernel support for CAS on Coldfire.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78671
Bug ID: 78671
Summary: ICE: in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2213 with
-Og -march=skylake-avx512
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467
--- Comment #11 from Waldemar Brodkorb ---
I talking about following change:
diff -Nur gcc.orig/libgcc/config.host gcc/libgcc/config.host
--- gcc.orig/libgcc/config.host 2016-02-26 21:02:28.0 +0100
+++ gcc/libgcc/config.host2016
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78663
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 40240
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40240&action=edit
Patch from Iain Sandoe
Results with the patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2016-12/msg00469
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78663
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78670
Bug ID: 78670
Summary: Incorrect file position with namelist read under DTIO
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77538
--- Comment #24 from peien luo ---
(In reply to Dmitry Vyukov from comment #23)
> Please provide disassembly of the function that contains the PC
> (__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator...).
> Did we fix any bugs that lead to missed __tsan_func_exit call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #15 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #10)
> This looks like a used-after-freed bug.
Yes, it does.
My first suspicion was that the problematic freeing happens at the end of
variable_decl (decl.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467
--- Comment #10 from Andreas Schwab ---
The fact that libcalls aren't using the C ABI is likely hurting everyone.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59694
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Damian Rouson from comment #7)
> Hopefully this PR is finally back in the correct state.
I think so. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59694
--- Comment #7 from Damian Rouson ---
> On Dec 4, 2016, at 12:45 AM, janus at gcc dot gnu.org
> wrote:
>
> --- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Damian Rouson from comment #4)
>> I meant to mark a different PR as inva
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37336
Bug 37336 depends on bug 59694, which changed state.
Bug 59694 Summary: [F03] no finalization of an unused variable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59694
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59694
Damian Rouson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78161
Damian Rouson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78669
Bug ID: 78669
Summary: ICE: in combine_and_move_insns, at ira.c:3665 with -Os
-fno-tree-ter -mavx512bw
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59694
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Damian Rouson from comment #4)
> I meant to mark a different PR as invalid but marked this one mistakenly.
Which one? So, should we reopen this one?
> Now I just tried to reset its s
93 matches
Mail list logo