https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85834
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On May 18, 2018 8:33:35 PM GMT+02:00, dcb314 at hotmail dot com
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85834
>
>David Binderman changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82063
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
--- Comment #7 from Martin Seb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58407
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81930
Bug 81930 depends on bug 58407, which changed state.
Bug 58407 Summary: [C++11] Should warn about deprecated implicit generation of
copy constructor/assignment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58407
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85837
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> > Be the change that you want to see in the world.
> >
> > If you want this, make it happen.
>
> Well, I alre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82899
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82899
--- Comment #24 from Marc Glisse ---
Author: glisse
Date: Fri May 18 22:21:20 2018
New Revision: 260383
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260383&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Aliasing 'this' in a C++ constructor
2018-05-18 Marc Glisse
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83891
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is still wrong, for Windows it should be:
return has_root_name() && has_root_directory();
But I'll fix it as part of PR 78870
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85837
--- Comment #7 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> Be the change that you want to see in the world.
>
> If you want this, make it happen.
Well, I already started by filing this bug, but point taken.
> (In re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85837
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85837
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #4)
> Fair enough, but, honestly - if the page says "Please, feel free to suggest
> new content in gcc-help mailing list" - practically nobody will contribute.
Why
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85837
--- Comment #4 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> There's https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/VerboseDiagnostics for a few such errors.
Well, that's a (tiny) start... however:
* I wouldn't have found it if you wouldn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85841
Bug ID: 85841
Summary: [F018] reject deleted features
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85840
Bug ID: 85840
Summary: Memory leak in write.c
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85839
Bug ID: 85839
Summary: [F2018] warn for obsolescent features
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58407
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 18 20:02:48 2018
New Revision: 260381
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260381&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/58407 - deprecated implicit copy ops.
gcc/c-family/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85792
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85792
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|diagnostic |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85837
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #0)
> Now, the GCC manual does not seem include such a listing, and I could not
> find it on the Wiki either. Assuming it indeed doesn't exist - I believe
> that it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82275
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Damian Rouson from comment #3)
> Thanks for looking at this. Once there's a fix, it would be great if it
> could be back-ported to GCC 7 as well.
Hi Damian,
Now I have found a bit of time, I am
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85599
--- Comment #33 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 06:23:41PM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85599
>
> --- Comment #32 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Steve Kargl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85837
--- Comment #2 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> We try to improve error messages rather than list all of the error messages
> out.
But the listed error messages must balance readability/accessibility with
con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85833
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Wojciech Mula from comment #0)
> There is a simple function, which checks if there is any non-zero element
> in a vector:
>
> ---ktest.c---
> #include
>
> int anynonzero_epi32(__m512i x) {
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85838
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Version|8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85838
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri May 18 18:49:20 2018
New Revision: 260374
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260374&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/85838
* config/sparc/sparc.c (sparc_expan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85838
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
.*
Target: sparc-sun-solaris2.*
Build: sparc-sun-solaris2.*
Between 20180517 (r260326) and 20180518 (r260354), Solaris/SPARC bootstrap got
broken. Compiling sparc.c in stage2 gives
In file included from /vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/config/sparc/sparc.c:42:
/vol/gcc/src
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85837
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85837
Bug ID: 85837
Summary: Listing of all error and warning messages
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: web
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85834
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85836
Bug ID: 85836
Summary: [meta-bug] Fortran 2018 support
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85824
--- Comment #6 from Tim Shen ---
(In reply to Tim Shen from comment #5)
> First of all, std::regex("[0-9]") shouldn't be locale sensitive, as
> regex_constants::collate is set.
Correction: as regex_constants::collate is *not* set.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85824
--- Comment #5 from Tim Shen ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Tim, I'll take care of checking errno in collate<>::_M_transform but could
> you advise what to do about the regex compiler? Maybe:
>
> --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85599
--- Comment #32 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #31)
> > This PR is not about reordering, but about short-circuiting.
>
> AFAICT this PR is about a function with side-effects,
> and re-ordering can have an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85826
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85835
Bug ID: 85835
Summary: libsanitizer includes unconditionally
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85834
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Removing the last two lines of commands which replace -O2 with -O3
also make it work, so it looks like someone's broken some part
of -O3 since Wed 16 May.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85834
Bug ID: 85834
Summary: ice in set_ssa_val_to, at tree-ssa-sccvn.c:3396
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85826
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85829
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Haswell tuning was done many years ago. We really shouldn't change it.
> For newer processors, we need to investigate PARTIAL_REG_DEPENDENCY vs
> PARTIAL_REG_STALL.
I have revisited the tunning options prima
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85829
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Haswell tuning was done many years ago. We really shouldn't change it.
For newer processors, we need to investigate PARTIAL_REG_DEPENDENCY vs
PARTIAL_REG_STALL.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85829
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85833
Bug ID: 85833
Summary: [AVX512] use mask registers instructions instead of
scalar code
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85832
Bug ID: 85832
Summary: [AVX512] possible shorter code when comparing with
vector of zeros
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85298
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85831
Bug ID: 85831
Summary: types should have move constructors and
move assignment operators
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85098
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk but I'll keep this open as I plan to backport it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85098
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri May 18 16:14:04 2018
New Revision: 260371
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260371&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/85098 add missing definitions for static constants
In C++11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85830
Bug ID: 85830
Summary: vec_popcntd is improperly defined in altivec.h
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85782
--- Comment #2 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: cesar
Date: Fri May 18 15:46:56 2018
New Revision: 260370
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260370&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/85782
Backport from mainline
2018-05-18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85782
--- Comment #1 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: cesar
Date: Fri May 18 15:43:09 2018
New Revision: 260369
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260369&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/85782
gcc/cp/
* cp-gimplify.c (cp_generi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85828
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is ugly but it works:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algo.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algo.h
@@ -3827,7 +3827,9 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
if ((__urange % 2) == 0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82089
Andrew Stubbs changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ams at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80931
snowfed changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||snowfed at mail dot ru
--- Comment #3 from sno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85599
--- Comment #31 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 05:37:51AM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > The order of the evaluation of ping() and pong() is
> > not specified by the Fortran standard.
>
> This PR is not about reorde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85829
Bug ID: 85829
Summary: [8/9 Regression] PARTIAL_REG_DEPENDENCY and MOVX were
disabled for Haswell and newer processors
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84846
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85656
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
[...]
> So can you please debug why we go into following branch:
> 1277if (!create_wrapper
> 1278&& !alias->call_for_symbol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84846
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri May 18 13:06:31 2018
New Revision: 260361
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260361&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcov: add new option -t that prints output to stdout (PR gcov-profile/8484
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85828
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85827
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Kretz ---
But macros are different. They remove the code before the C++ parser sees it
(at least as-if). One great improvement of constexpr-if over macros is that all
the other branches are parsed and their syntax che
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84846
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri May 18 12:46:32 2018
New Revision: 260359
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260359&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Print working directory to gcov files (PR gcov-profile/84846).
2018-05-18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85828
Bug ID: 85828
Summary: std::shuffle tries to swap element with itself
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85817
--- Comment #4 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: prathamesh3492
Date: Fri May 18 12:31:04 2018
New Revision: 260358
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260358&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-18 Prathamesh Kulkarni
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85827
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
I think that's going to be hard. The same issue always existed with macros. The
whole point of "if constexpr" is not to look at the other branches, as they may
not even compile. Sure, some minimal "safe" attemp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85827
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38087
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2017-08-17 00:00:00 |2018-5-18
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85824
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||timshen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85827
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Kretz ---
Same issue for -Wunused-variable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85827
Bug ID: 85827
Summary: false positive for -Wunused-but-set-variable because
of constexpr-if
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38087
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45582
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85803
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 17 May 2018, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85803
>
> Eric Botcazou changed:
>
>What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85537
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
However I don't see any failures with this variant:
program main
call foo()
contains
subroutine foo()
integer :: a
abstract interface
subroutine ibar()
end s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85537
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63185
--- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> I guess you meant (notice the bogus memset size above):
True. And while it shouldn't make a difference in checking if the stores to c
are dead, it could (but do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66694
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> On darwin the executable hangs due to pr30617.
Commenting the line 118 allows the executable to run and to give a sensible
output.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63185
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #5)
> Another example:
>
> #include
> void f(){
> const int n=1<<14;
> double a[n];
> double b[n];
> double c[n];
> __builtin_memset(a,0,n);
> __builtin_m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85825
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79092
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||christosstratopoulos1@gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 18 May 2018, tetra2005 at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822
>
> --- Comment #6 from Yuri Gribov ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63185
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 44146
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44146&action=edit
testresults
Related I checked
Index: gcc/passes.def
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822
--- Comment #6 from Yuri Gribov ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> Created attachment 44145 [details]
> patch I am testing
>
> I am testing the attached. Please check how negative values can be handled
> correctly or why exactly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85826
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85819
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85817
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85826
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85826
Bug ID: 85826
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in builtin_memref in
gcc/gimple-ssa-warn-restrict.c:281 starting with
r260280
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68950
--- Comment #12 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #9)
> (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #8)
> > (In reply to vries from comment #6)
> > > posted RFC: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-12/msg01749.html
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68950
--- Comment #11 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #10)
> If you're looking for a Fortran maintainer's approval, then
> one may want to submit the patch to fort...@gcc.gnu.org.
Both the original submission and the ping where
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 17 May 2018, tetra2005 at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822
>
> --- Comment #3 from Yuri Gribov ---
> It seems these lines in is_masked_range_test
92 matches
Mail list logo
