https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68155
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=84824
--- Comment #15 from linzj ---
The structalias solve_graph is not resolving the nodes reachable from a source
node, which make my try fail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85012
Bug ID: 85012
Summary: GCC does not inline extern "C" functions defined in a
different namespace
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: misse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64925
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44348
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85011
Bug ID: 85011
Summary: GCC complains that 2 identical function prototypes are
different
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
--- Comment #21 from Kaushik.Phatak at kpit dot com ---
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your work on this.
>> Kaushik, remind me, you're seeing the same ICE in GCC 7 as well
Yes, this does fail in gcc-7.x.
>> so we need a backport of the patch committed to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85001
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85010
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose ---
last known successful build is r258631 on power*-linux-gnu and
aarch64-linux-gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85001
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Mar 21 01:27:42 2018
New Revision: 258700
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258700&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-20 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/85001
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85001
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Mar 21 01:26:25 2018
New Revision: 258699
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258699&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-20 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/85001
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85010
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose ---
... and on aarch64-linux-gnu
==+
| 8.0.1 20180320 (experimental) [trunk revision 258670] (powerpc-linux-gnu) GCC
error:|
| in assemble_variable, at varasm.c:2297 |
| Error detected around ../../src/gcc/ada/libgnat/s-rident.ads:75:16 |
| Please submit a bug report; see https
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85001
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Mar 21 01:07:43 2018
New Revision: 258698
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258698&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-20 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/85001
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85001
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85009
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
It's not obvious that this is a bug, in that _Atomic is syntactically a
qualifier, but excluded semantically for most purposes. In particular,
that conversion is permitted by ISO C, so the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85001
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #2)
> gfortran-8 changed at r254604 (pr78814).
> gfortran-7 changed at r256646.
> gfortran-6 changed at r256647.
Remove myself from CC list. My patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85002
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84994
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84892
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85009
Bug ID: 85009
Summary: missing -Wdiscarded-qualifiers when dropping _Atomic
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85001
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85003
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84957
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84919
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.0 |9.0
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey A. Law
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84838
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Tue Mar 20 22:22:28 2018
New Revision: 258694
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258694&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/84838
* Minor grammar fixes for x86 options.
Mod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84998
--- Comment #3 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Tue Mar 20 21:45:14 2018
New Revision: 258693
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258693&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-20 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/84998
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84851
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85008
Bug ID: 85008
Summary: internal compiler error: lang_* check: failed in
decl_cloned_function_p, at cp/class.c:4577
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84990
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84875
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] ICE in |[6/7 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84875
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 20 21:07:13 2018
New Revision: 258692
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258692&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/84875
* dce.c (delete_unmarked_insns): Don't remo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85007
Bug ID: 85007
Summary: -b flag to gnatlink not recognized
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59930
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64816
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81347
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78724
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81347
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59930
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thomasanderson at google dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59930
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||loic.yhuel at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78724
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59930
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thakis at chromium dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64816
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85006
Bug ID: 85006
Summary: [7/8 Regression] [concepts] ICE with bogus parameter
pack
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84972
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84972
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini ---
Indeed, we want one error, not three ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72825
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84972
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84972
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|paolo.carlini at oracle dot com|unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84647
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||84798
Assignee|aoliva at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84615
--- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Dominique, can you check whether it also fixes the other -fdefault-real-8 -m32
> issues caused by r256284?
Preliminary tests show that all the failures reported in comment 0 are fixed by
the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84999
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84972
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84972
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|paolo.carlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85004
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85004
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84826
--- Comment #8 from sudi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #5)
> It seems a latent bug in arm_r3_live_at_start_p which now triggers much more
> often due to stack clash protection:
>
> if (IS_NESTED (arm_current_func_type (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85005
sudi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm*-*-*
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85005
Bug ID: 85005
Summary: Redesign and cleanup arm.c wrt to
flag_stack_clash_protection and flag_stack_check
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84998
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The change happened with r255780 i.e. PR c++/59930
I'll make the necessary fixes to libstdc++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84978
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84978
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Test added in r258691 but I used the wrong commit message :(.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84927
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Mar 20 18:13:38 2018
New Revision: 258691
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258691&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/84927
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_bare_aggregate): U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84978
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Mar 20 18:05:59 2018
New Revision: 258689
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258689&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/84978, ICE with NRVO.
* cvt.c (cp_get_fndecl_from_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85004
Bug ID: 85004
Summary: ambiguous diagnostic: passing ‘const S’ as ‘this’
argument discards qualifiers
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84998
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Also:
#define _GLIBCXX_DEBUG
#include
int main()
{
std::vector b;
std::hash> h;
return h(b);
}
And a number of other debug mode failures related to access. I suspect FE
improvements to lookup have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85003
Bug ID: 85003
Summary: Inline built-in fdim for -fno-math-errno
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85002
Bug ID: 85002
Summary: [7/8 Regression] ICE in fold_ternary_loc, at
fold-const.c:11360
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85001
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
These two variants compile without any errors :
$ cat z2.f90
program p
type t
end type
call s
contains
real function f(x)
class(t) :: x(:)
f = 1.0
end
subroutine s
type(t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85001
Bug ID: 85001
Summary: [6/7/8 Regression] ICE in gfc_build_array_type, at
fortran/trans-types.c:1420
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85000
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
Configured with --enable-checking=yes :
$ gcc-8-20180318 -c z1.c -O2 -fopenmp
during GIMPLE pass: omplower
z1.c: In function 'foo':
z1.c:8:6: internal compiler error: in scan_omp_1_op, at omp-low.c:3014
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85000
Bug ID: 85000
Summary: ICE in copy_reference_ops_from_ref, at
tree-ssa-sccvn.c:895
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84997
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018, antoshkka at gmail dot com wrote:
> For example
>
> int test2(int lhs) {
> lhs += 2.0;
> return lhs;
> }
That would need -fno-trapping-math, because if the add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84999
Bug ID: 84999
Summary: [7/8 Regression] ICE in make_vector_type, at
tree.c:9561
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
--- Comment #20 from Peter Bergner ---
Kaushik, remind me, you're seeing the same ICE in GCC 7 as well, so we need a
backport of the patch committed to trunk?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84998
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84998
Bug ID: 84998
Summary: [8 Regression] std::hash> fails in
Debug Mode
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84996
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Adding +0.0 and -0.0 produces +0.0 except in FE_DOWNWARD mode. I.e.,
optimizing away an addition of +0.0 requires -fno-signed-zeros (not the
default), as well as -fno-signaling-nans (which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
--- Comment #18 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Tue Mar 20 17:25:09 2018
New Revision: 258688
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258688&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/83789
* config/rs6000/altivec.md (altivec_lvx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84997
Bug ID: 84997
Summary: Optimize integer operations on floating point
constants without -ffast-math
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: misse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Summary|[6/7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #52 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Mar 20 17:13:16 2018
New Revision: 258687
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258687&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
This PR shows that we get the load/store_lanes logic wron
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84826
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Oops I think I missed the artificial defs. Then the liveness makes sense.
> Out of curiosity why are all the argument register defined? This function
> for instance does not need 4 argument register.
Histo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84960
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83660
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||willschm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84996
--- Comment #2 from Antony Polukhin ---
Then let's change the example to
int test(int lhs) {
return 0.0 + lhs;
}
In that case no signaling Nan is possible, but the code still does additions
test(int):
pxorxmm0, xmm0
cv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84996
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Iirc it can't due to signaling nans.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84996
Bug ID: 84996
Summary: Adding or substracting 0.0 could be optimized away
even without -ffast-math
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: misse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84934
--- Comment #4 from Дилян Палаузов ---
Oh, I have typed on this matter already in the past:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70345
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84995
Bug ID: 84995
Summary: Documentation gcc-ar and gcc-ranlib vs
{libdir}/bfd-plugins
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84994
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Missing accessor hint for |Missing accessor hint for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84962
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Tue Mar 20 16:01:08 2018
New Revision: 258686
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258686&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR c++/84962] ICE with anon-struct member
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84962
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84970
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Tue Mar 20 15:57:30 2018
New Revision: 258685
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258685&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR c++/84970] lookup marking
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84970
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71638
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|error-recovery, |ice-on-valid-code
|ice
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84969
--- Comment #2 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I see, there are two issues here.
- wrong code issue: fuse_memset_builtins breaks dependence between two
intersect memset call;
- efficiency issue: The loop should not be distributed into two mems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83258
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
With this patch:
--- a/gcc/cp/pt.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/pt.c
@@ -6259,7 +6259,8 @@ conv
1 - 100 of 225 matches
Mail list logo
