https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78661
--- Comment #27 from Jerry DeLisle ---
With the patch applied and the following test case:
MODULE m
IMPLICIT NONE
TYPE :: t
integer :: j
CHARACTER :: c
integer :: k
CONTAINS
PROCEDURE :: write_formatted
GENERIC :: WRITE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80017
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Thank you for the report. I've reproduced and started to work on it. The fix
will be probably ready on Wednesday.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79912
--- Comment #15 from Palmer Dabbelt ---
Created attachment 40968
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40968&action=edit
glibc file that loops
The suggested patch causes an infinate loop while building glibc for RISC-V.
The prepr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79905
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
So, is the desired behavior that the front end produce an error message
instead? Or is the front end supposed to unify these two types and accept the
code?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79800
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80007
--- Comment #9 from PeteVine ---
Correction, it was about -fomit-frame-pointer period! Setting the environment
C(XX)FLAGS to that flag alone triggers the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79382
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Can this be closed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80006
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78661
--- Comment #26 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to janus from comment #25)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #24)
> > I dont think the parent is suppose to emit the Object name. What if there
> > are multiple components?
>
> Huh, I'm no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80009
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79820
--- Comment #4 from niXman ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> and it also needs to be done on line 275.
why?
line 275:
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/libstdc%2B%2B-v3/config/io/basic_file_stdio.cc?view=markup#l275
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79856
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Roland Illig from comment #6)
> I would define the rules as follows, the first matching rule wins:
>
> 1. do not translate messages that contain names of GCC implementation
> functions
>
> 2. do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80009
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Walt Brainerd from comment #7)
> I took "not processed by" to mean that there is no DT edit descriptor
> corresponding to it.
>
> But I see how this might be interpreted otherwise.
>
> Intel ag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80037
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80037
Bug ID: 80037
Summary: Bad .eh_frame data in crtend.o
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80036
Bug ID: 80036
Summary: Source line not printed for diagnostic if expanded
from a macro
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79908
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80033
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79820
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Comment on attachment 40966
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40966
patch
It's quite possible that "errno" is a macro for something called "__errno" on
some systems, so this would fail t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79538
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79820
--- Comment #2 from niXman ---
Created attachment 40966
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40966&action=edit
patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80035
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80035
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 40965
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40965&action=edit
pr58640.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80035
Bug ID: 80035
Summary: [nvptx] non-returning function call causes ptxas
sigsegv
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79793
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78661
--- Comment #25 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #24)
> I dont think the parent is suppose to emit the Object name. What if there
> are multiple components?
Huh, I'm not sure. But your statement contradict
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80034
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80034
--- Comment #4 from ville at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ville
Date: Mon Mar 13 19:44:42 2017
New Revision: 246109
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246109&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/80034
* include/bits/list.tcc (merge(list&&)): Use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80034
--- Comment #3 from ville at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ville
Date: Mon Mar 13 19:43:27 2017
New Revision: 246108
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246108&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/80034
* include/bits/list.tcc (merge(list&&)): Use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80034
--- Comment #2 from ville at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ville
Date: Mon Mar 13 19:41:50 2017
New Revision: 246107
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246107&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/80034
* include/bits/list.tcc (merge(list&&)): Use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79855
--- Comment #5 from Roland Illig ---
Here is a simple program to check the help strings for consistency:
#include
#include
static void assert_trailing_dot(const char *help)
{
size_t len = strlen(help);
if (len > 0 && help[len-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79855
Roland Illig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70893
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39239
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 05:38:57PM +, koenigni at student dot ethz.ch
wrote:
>
> (In reply to kargl from comment #7)
> >
> > Do you have a copyright assignment on file with the FSF
> > for GCC? Your fir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80006
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The premature promotion probably comes from
targetm.calls.promote_prototypes, which currently takes effect in the
front ends (affecting the IR generated for both caller and callee).
I thin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80001
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Sat, 11 Mar 2017, roland.illig at gmx dot de wrote:
> error_at (loop->loc, loop->routine
> ? "routine call uses same OpenACC parallelism as containing loop"
> : "inner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79919
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80034
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39239
--- Comment #9 from Nicolas Koenig ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #7)
> (In reply to Nicolas Koenig from comment #6)
> > Created attachment 40962 [details]
> > Proposed patch for EQUIVALENCE / VOLATILE
> >
> > This patch should cover the ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39239
Nicolas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #40962|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77631
Denis Khalikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d.khalikov at partner dot
samsung.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39239
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77631
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77631
--- Comment #3 from Denis Khalikov ---
Created attachment 40963
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40963&action=edit
patch for PR sanitizer/77631
Hello everyone, i have a patch for this issue.
(see attachment PR_sanitizer_77631
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80034
Bug ID: 80034
Summary: [5/6 Regression] unqualified calls to std::distance in
std::list::sort
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79856
--- Comment #6 from Roland Illig ---
I would define the rules as follows, the first matching rule wins:
1. do not translate messages that contain names of GCC implementation functions
2. do not translate messages that contain the words GIMPLE,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67578
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79920
Andrey Guskov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrey.y.guskov at intel dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39239
--- Comment #6 from Nicolas Koenig ---
Created attachment 40962
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40962&action=edit
Proposed patch for EQUIVALENCE / VOLATILE
This patch should cover the case of one EQUIVALENCE object being VOL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80033
Bug ID: 80033
Summary: style suggestions for
gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80032
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
cddce1 removes them for -fno-exceptions case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80019
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80032
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> For trunk ehcleanup1 removes them.
Though with -fno-exceptions, they are gone before hand.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78339
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78339
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Mar 13 15:30:17 2017
New Revision: 246098
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246098&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Do not warn -Wsuggest-attribute=noreturn for main.chkp (PR middle-end/7833
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80032
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80028
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This smells like the code got too big for the current memory model.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80029
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80032
Bug ID: 80032
Summary: C++ excessive stack usage (no stack reuse)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80031
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
It shrinks gcno file for tramp3d (w/ --coverage) from 5.7MB to 5.4MB.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79963
--- Comment #1 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kelvin
Date: Mon Mar 13 15:11:46 2017
New Revision: 246096
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246096&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Use this branch to work on pr 79963: vec_eq_any extracts wron
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79816
felix changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also|https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill |
|a/show_bug.cgi?id=79554
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80031
Bug ID: 80031
Summary: gcno files contain BB flags that are not used
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: gcov-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80016
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71399
--- Comment #20 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
THe question I'm really trying to answer is whether or not the bug is limited
to gcc-4.9.x. If so, then we can just close this as 4.9.x are dead branches.
It appears that's the case, but I'm doing a verif
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80009
--- Comment #7 from Walt Brainerd ---
I took "not processed by" to mean that there is no DT edit descriptor
corresponding to it.
But I see how this might be interpreted otherwise.
Intel agrees with me FWIW.
Maybe this is a question for J3 (or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79981
--- Comment #10 from Dominik Vogt ---
Thanks for the fix; I'll regression test it soon, just need some time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80027
Maxim Ostapenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m.ostapenko at samsung dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79992
--- Comment #15 from Yanai ---
> How so? SRA has
>
> > [t1.cc:10:47] [t1.cc:10:47] D.36138.v = [t1.cc:24:29] &[t1.cc:24:20]
> > MEM[(const struct __lambda0 *)[t1.cc:17:42] &D.36138].__i;
> ...
> > [t1.cc:17:42] D.36138 ={v} {CLOBBER};
> ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67578
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1)
> Or maybe we should keep the ABI unchanged and put all the implementation
> in the header random.h?
No. It would then pollute the global namespace with sys/ioctl.h and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79985
--- Comment #5 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Well, we can special case this in sel-sched either along the lines of
df-scan.c, or even easier, just forbid any asm reordering given the DF hunk.
Generally speaking, we've been bitten a couple of times
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80030
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80030
Bug ID: 80030
Summary: [7 Regression] valgrind error in vect_get_slp_defs at
tree-vect-slp.c:3360
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80029
Bug ID: 80029
Summary: [6/7 Regression] valgrind error in
new_omp_context(omp_region_type) (gimplify.c:400)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79992
--- Comment #14 from Yanai ---
>
> How so? SRA has
>
> > [t1.cc:10:47] [t1.cc:10:47] D.36138.v = [t1.cc:24:29] &[t1.cc:24:20]
> > MEM[(const struct __lambda0 *)[t1.cc:17:42] &D.36138].__i;
> ...
> > [t1.cc:17:42] D.36138 ={v} {CLOBBER};
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79856
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 40958
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40958&action=edit
Candidate untested patch
I'm sending candidate patch. Can you please Roland tell me where we distinguish
which m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79771
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://github.com/madler/z
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71399
--- Comment #19 from wilco at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #18)
> I've been able to reproduce this under arm-qemu.
>
> Start by bootstrapping and installing gcc-4.9.4. Then use that gcc-4.9.4 to
> build gcc-5.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79393
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|SUSPENDED
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79393
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Mon Mar 13 11:58:15 2017
New Revision: 246085
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246085&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79393 DR 1658 workaround
* method.c (synthesized_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80028
Bug ID: 80028
Summary: Failure to build allyesconfig arm64 kernel using
aarch64-none-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80007
--- Comment #8 from PeteVine ---
It was about -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer, but yeah, I don't care one bit either.
Just make sure `--enable-languages=ada` works. (c++ is not being inferred so
you end up with no xg++)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79911
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79911
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Mon Mar 13 10:58:48 2017
New Revision: 246084
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246084&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR target/79911: Invalid vec_select arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80004
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Depend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #52 from Pedro Alves ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #51)
> (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #50)
> > But maybe the cplus_demangle_fill_xxx functions should do this initializing
> > instead? In that case gdb only ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80025
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80020
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80017
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80015
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80014
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80006
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
VRP does
Visiting PHI node: x_4 = PHI
Argument #0 (5 -> 4 executable)
x_10: ~[-3, 7] EQUIVALENCES: { x_5(D) } (1 elements)
Argument #1 (3 -> 4 executable)
-4: [-4, -4]
Meeting
~[
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80027
Bug ID: 80027
Summary: ASAN breaks DT_RPATH $ORIGIN in dlopen()
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: saniti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80004
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.4.1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80004
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Component|rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80004
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80007
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79902
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79902
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Ok, there
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79992
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
