https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94010
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59863
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aleksey.covacevice at gmail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93962
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93995
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93995
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kito Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8cc59ac591256f8899e137db7633fd7d1a2164ba
commit r10-7008-g8cc59ac591256f8899e137db7633fd7d1a2164ba
Author: Kito Cheng
Date: Tue Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94019
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94013
--- Comment #5 from fdlbxtqi ---
(In reply to fdlbxtqi from comment #4)
> I noticed LLVM's libc++ has the same issue when I did the test to libstdc++.
> However, their bug reporting port has closed. How can I report that?
>
> It is amazing that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94013
--- Comment #4 from fdlbxtqi ---
I noticed LLVM's libc++ has the same issue when I did the test to libstdc++.
However, their bug reporting port has closed. How can I report that?
It is amazing that two mainstream C++ standard library implementat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90505
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] g++ |[9 Regression] g++ rejects
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90505
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6b3302da9ef26aa11940f8c0dc92bec19e15c09b
commit r10-7007-g6b3302da9ef26aa11940f8c0dc92bec19e15c09b
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94023
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94017
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94017
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:712b182a8bc2d7510d7a2fbede43bf134c539f25
commit r10-7006-g712b182a8bc2d7510d7a2fbede43bf134c539f25
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94025
Bug ID: 94025
Summary: Expected-to-fail compilation goes through by not
detecting mutable-specifier on lambda
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90505
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Summary|[9/10 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94021
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94024
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94024
Bug ID: 94024
Summary: Error message has misleading source location for
constructor member initialisation.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93962
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94010
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
See bug 59863, with discussion of the requirement for distinct copies of
the array in recursive calls to have distinct addresses. (Thus, this
would definitely not be valid without -fmerge-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94023
Bug ID: 94023
Summary: [9 regerssion] gcc.dg/vect/slp-perm-12.c fails
starting with r9-5008
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94013
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:462f6c2041fad058abcdd5122e99a024f69a39d5
commit r10-6999-g462f6c2041fad058abcdd5122e99a024f69a39d5
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94013
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94015
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Nate Eldredge from comment #4)
> I'm not qualified to opine on the proposed fix, but just wanted to note
> that, as I mentioned above, running your testcase doesn't actually exercise
> the bug on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94015
--- Comment #4 from Nate Eldredge ---
Comment on attachment 47959
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47959
gcc10-pr94015.patch
I'm not qualified to opine on the proposed fix, but just wanted to note that,
as I mentioned above,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94021
--- Comment #3 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
Created attachment 47965
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47965&action=edit
A short program that does NOT produce the error/warning.
A simple problem that does NOT produce error/warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94021
--- Comment #2 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
Created attachment 47964
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47964&action=edit
The script to issue gcc-9 with the original option setting.
This is the command to invoke gcc-9 on my PC with
arrays the upper bound of the slice
gets rewritten to mark the array as assumed-size.
I believe that this behavior is incorrect and array slices are explicit shape
arrays.
OpenMP seems to rely on this behavior.
Seen in:
GNU Fortran (GCC) 9.2.1 20200303
GNU Fortran (GCC) 10.0.1 20200303 (exper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94021
--- Comment #1 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
Created attachment 47962
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47962&action=edit
This is the full compiler log I got.
The is the full compiler error/warning log I got.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94021
Bug ID: 94021
Summary: -Werror=format-truncation= seems to cause incorrect
warning, thus error.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
n:
GNU Fortran (GCC) 9.2.1 20200303
GNU Fortran (GCC) 10.0.1 20200303 (experimental)
IMHO before even attempting to fix the problems it is essential that some clear
official policy is agreed upon in order to define the protocol to be used to
signal assumed-size and zero sized arrays.
Thank you ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91598
--- Comment #4 from Wilco ---
Fixing vmull_lane_s16 and vmlal_lane_s16 to avoid inline assembler gives this
schedule which runs 63% faster on Cortex-A53:
ldr d2, [x6, x0]
ldr d4, [x6, x3]
ldr d3, [x6, x2]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94001
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94010
--- Comment #3 from Aleksey Covacevice ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> It isn't so much about -fmerge-all-constants, this is about not eliding
> the automatic variable for the string constant.
>
> Note it may be the language s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93998
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93998
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0e0ffbfc23ba98ac40cbc6330e2750a6448b79d9
commit r10-6998-g0e0ffbfc23ba98ac40cbc6330e2750a6448b79d9
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94019
Bug ID: 94019
Summary: [9 regression] gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-17.c fails
starting with
g:370c2ebe8fa20e0812cd2d533d4ed38ee2d37c85, r9-1590
Product: gcc
Versio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94001
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Compon
10.0.1 20200303 (experimental) [master revision
3d6fd7ce6dc:a5d64750934:b07e4e7c7520ca3e798f514dec0711eea2c027be] (GCC)
#expected output.
$ gcc-trunk -g abc.c
$ gdb -x cmds -batch a.out
Breakpoint 1 at 0x40048f: file abc.c, line 5.
Breakpoint 1, main () at abc.c:5
5 b = (l = a) || 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94015
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94013
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94017
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94017
Bug ID: 94017
Summary: std::ranges::fill_n uses memset incorrectly
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36566
--- Comment #11 from Ed Catmur ---
(In reply to rene.rahn from comment #10)
> I know this is quite old now. But can someone explain me why using `#pragma
> pack(push, 1)` does work then?
`#pragma pack` has sharper edges. It will let you take un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36566
rene.r...@fu-berlin.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rene.r...@fu-berlin.de
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94016
Bug ID: 94016
Summary: Debug info produced by gfortran contains the wrong
path for included files
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94015
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|jakub at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806
--- Comment #35 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Alexander Cherepanov from comment #34)
> (In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #13)
> > In C without Annex F, division by 0 is undefined behavior (really undefined
> > behavior, not an uns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93996
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #8 fr
}
}
}
}
--
$ gcc -std=c11 -pedantic -Wall -Wextra -fno-signed-zeros -O3 test.c && ./a.out
zero = 0
zero = 1
--
gcc x86-64 version: gcc (GCC) 10.0.1 20200303 (experimental)
--
Bonus: bare -fno-signed-zeros is used here, without -fno-trapping-math.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93259
--- Comment #2 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
Ping
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84194
Stas Sergeev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|7.2.1 |9.2.1
--- Comment #2 from Stas Sergeev -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94015
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94015
Bug ID: 94015
Summary: [10 Regression] Another assignment incorrectly omitted
by -foptimize-strlen
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wron
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93740
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93740
--- Comment #1 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
Ping
--disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r10-6995-20200303110626-g9b4f00dd3f7-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-riscv64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 10.0.1 20200303 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92989
Dragan Mladjenovic changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92989
--- Comment #6 from Dragan Mladjenovic ---
Created attachment 47955
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47955&action=edit
Reproducer for additional failure2
It seems that one file still fails to compile on today's trunk (b07e4e7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93888
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- gcc/tree-inline.c.jj2020-02-07 19:11:57.444981885 +0100
+++ gcc/tree-inline.c 2020-03-03 13:27:57.811046011 +0100
@@ -5929,6 +5929,7 @@ copy_decl_to_var (tree decl, copy_body_d
TREE_READONLY
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93888
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The location looks fine.
The issue is that the func1_k argument is turned into a reference
(DECL_BY_REFERENCE).
In the *.optimized dump we have:
const struct K & restrict func1_k;
...
K::K (&D.2368, &my_k
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85804
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Joel Hutton from comment #9)
> This was fixed on trunk by 69f8c1ae (From SVN: r276700)
Huh. That wasn't a bugfix. Do we still vectorize the loop? I'd guess the
issue went latent.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85804
Joel Hutton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joel.hutton at arm dot com
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93990
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I have tried:
--- gcc/config/i386/i386-expand.c.jj2020-01-12 11:54:36.323414766 +0100
+++ gcc/config/i386/i386-expand.c 2020-03-03 12:44:54.116134173 +0100
@@ -11902,7 +11902,18 @@ rdseed_step:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93990
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77704
Rémy Chibois changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rchibois at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94013
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94010
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94012
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93999
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94002
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93582
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93582
--- Comment #38 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b07e4e7c7520ca3e798f514dec0711eea2c027be
commit r10-6994-gb07e4e7c7520ca3e798f514dec0711eea2c027be
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94013
--- Comment #1 from fdlbxtqi ---
Yeah. It looks like libc++ has the same bug. LOL.
volatile is really stupid tbh.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93059
--- Comment #45 from fdlbxtqi ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #43)
> (In reply to fdlbxtqi from comment #39)
> > const auto __c = __builtin_memcmp(&*__first1, &*__first2, __len) <=> 0;
>
> Are you mistakenly reading this as derefer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93059
--- Comment #44 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to fdlbxtqi from comment #41)
> And the volatile bugs haven't fixed either.
Maybe you shouldn't use a single bug report for multiple, unrelated problems.
I've reported Bug 94013 for that becaus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94013
Bug ID: 94013
Summary: [10 Regression] library algos need to work around cwg
2094
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93946
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93946
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Guenther :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3d6fd7ce6dc4b6baa11920387d62dc001980aa70
commit r10-6993-g3d6fd7ce6dc4b6baa11920387d62dc001980aa70
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93059
--- Comment #43 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to fdlbxtqi from comment #39)
> const auto __c = __builtin_memcmp(&*__first1, &*__first2, __len) <=> 0;
Are you mistakenly reading this as dereferencing &*begin and &*end of an
iterator range? B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94002
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e913d4f4771e04d4254bf6c0e720fec5e324a898
commit r9-8326-ge913d4f4771e04d4254bf6c0e720fec5e324a898
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94008
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94007
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26877
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:01eb1bb0237a24fe50ed0631857f3dfc31782f54
commit r10-6992-g01eb1bb0237a24fe50ed0631857f3dfc31782f54
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93059
--- Comment #42 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to fdlbxtqi from comment #39)
> Hi Jonathan. Another bug I found before and you haven't fixed:
Have you reported it?
> https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/libstdc%2B%2B-v3/include/bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94002
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0ab503d34f2a8c22262ceefea6c882ae2ff75230
commit r10-6991-g0ab503d34f2a8c22262ceefea6c882ae2ff75230
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94009
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
See Bug 52590 comment 4 in particular.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94008
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Nicholas Krause from comment #1)
> Your passing into std::move and then again. That's incorrect as your moving
> and moving again into the test_lamba.
No, that's not what the code does.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94012
Bug ID: 94012
Summary: Difference in gcc warning generation with c file and
preprocessed file
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94010
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Version|4.9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94011
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93999
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-3-3
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93564
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
> and I see a smaller slow down on different configurations:
> https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=10.477.0
> https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=297.477.0
Thank you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94006
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94005
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
95 matches
Mail list logo
