https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96827
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Oddly enough with
> gcc-10 --version
gcc-10 (SUSE Linux) 10.2.1 20200805 [revision
dda1e9d08434def88ed86557d08b23251332c5aa]
Copyright (C) 2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96822
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96825
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Key
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96820
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |11.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96818
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
I only see downsides forcing the same type in the IL, it makes propagation of
for example widening cast sources into switches much harder (need to convert
all case labels).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96827
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Just in case, does adding -fno-strict-aliasing help?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96829
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96829
Bug ID: 96829
Summary: implement -fsanitize=unsigned-integer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96810
--- Comment #2 from Wei Wentao ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> >The standard says this is unspecified behavior, but the unspecified behavior
> >happens at runtime, so if the compiler could detect it at compile time, it
> >would nee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96828
Bug ID: 96828
Summary: Wrong code generated with -fstack-protector and
-msingle-pic-base
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: /home/sqwishy/src/gcc/configure --enable-languages=c
--disable-multilib
gcc version 11.0.0 20200827 (experimental) (GCC)
This is the command and output of compiling the attached file (min.i) with the
version of gcc I built from a recent checkout.
&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96728
--- Comment #4 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Hi Paul,
Sorry for the confusion. I did not knew I could (should) have assigned it to
myself.
Sorry for the wasted time.
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
José Rui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96791
acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |acsawdey at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96824
--- Comment #3 from gcc_bugzilla at gabryjelski dot com ---
Ok, thanks for taking a look. Glad to hear it's just old version on
godbolt.org.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96798
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> What does the declaration of memset look like in your headers?
> (including attributes)
void*memset(void *__b, int __c, size_t __len);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96791
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Not the partially dead store code after all -- just a coincidence!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96798
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Sorry about the failures.
I attempted to reproduce this via building a cross-compiler with
build==host==x86_64-pc-linux-gnu and --target=x86_64-apple-darwin19.6; I think
this comes down to the tests in quest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96826
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||83819
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96826
Bug ID: 96826
Summary: missing warning appending to the result of strdup
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89102
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:82030d51017323c5706d58d8c8626324ece007e4
commit r11-2913-g82030d51017323c5706d58d8c8626324ece007e4
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85487
Baruch Burstein changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bmburstein at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96818
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Judging from what other passes do with gimple switches and especially what the
tree-cfg.c switch verifier checks, the only requirement is that the index as
well as CASE_LOW/HIGH types are integral, all case l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96825
Bug ID: 96825
Summary: Commit r11-2645 degrades CPU2017 548.exchange2_r by
35%
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96813
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96818
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85830
--- Comment #4 from Carl Love ---
Just remove
#define vec_popcntb __builtin_vec_vpopcntub
#define vec_popcnth __builtin_vec_vpopcntuh
#define vec_popcntw __builtin_vec_vpopcntuw
#define vec_popcntd __builtin_vec_vpopcntud
from altivec.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96791
--- Comment #3 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This also requires -mbig which may be implicit in the original poster's build.
But I see it failing as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96805
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96732
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85830
--- Comment #3 from Steven Munroe ---
(In reply to Carl Love from comment #2)
> Hit the save button a little too fast missed putting in everything I
> intended to put in. Lets try to get it all in.
>
> > In altivec.h they are defined as:
> >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96818
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96811
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 04:57:14PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96811
>
> --- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment #2)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96791
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96790
Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid |wrong-code
Resolut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65816
Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||johelegp at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96818
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96823
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87798
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez ---
And a C version:
int a, b, c;
void d() {
unsigned short e;
while (b)
;
e = (e + 5) / 0;
switch (e)
case 0:
case 3:
c = a;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96818
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96824
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87798
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92942
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96791
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96824
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96824
Bug ID: 96824
Summary: segfault during IPA pass: analyzer (very simple code)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96822
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||96818
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernande
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96818
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
:
c = a;
}
broke in this way:
/home/dcb/gcc/results.20200826/bin/gcc
/home/dcb/gcc/results.20200827/bin/gcc
during GIMPLE pass: vrp
resample_f.c: In function ‘rs_vib_loop’:
resample_f.c:3230:20: internal compiler error: in decompose, at wide-int.h:984
0xfc1e55 irange::irange_intersect(irange const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85830
--- Comment #2 from Carl Love ---
Hit the save button a little too fast missed putting in everything I intended
to put in. Lets try to get it all in.
(In reply to Carl Love from comment #1)
> The Power 64-Bi ELF V2 ABI specification revision 1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96813
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85830
Carl Love changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cel at us dot ibm.com
--- Comment #1 from Ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96822
Bug ID: 96822
Summary: [11 regression] Starting with r11-2833 ICE in
decompose, at wide-int.h:984
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96596
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Assignee|unassigned at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96821
--- Comment #1 from Daniil Dudkin ---
Considering the code below the correct output would be (without the
indentation):
Called with constant value
Called with non-const value
But the actual output is:
Called with constant value
Called wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95882
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95882
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:042c58a4b8ba48fdf26c9003154e9d3b83d4c568
commit r9-8836-g042c58a4b8ba48fdf26c9003154e9d3b83d4c568
Author: Mark Eggleston
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96821
Bug ID: 96821
Summary: [concepts] Incorrect evaluation of concept with
ill-formed expression
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96811
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #2)
> For real x, gfortran does not generate a call to libgfortran function.
It does – as mentioned in my email reply but not only for 'int' integers:
integer(16) :: n
real :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #24 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:04df5e7de2f3dd652a9cddc1c9adfbdf45947ae6
commit r11-2909-g04df5e7de2f3dd652a9cddc1c9adfbdf45947ae6
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96818
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96811
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=96787
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83700
Bug 83700 depends on bug 79097, which changed state.
Bug 79097 Summary: coarray and pointer component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79097
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79097
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96787
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by William Schmidt :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:abca87c57847cd04f5e05935ff9ae5121c1ecb1d
commit r11-2908-gabca87c57847cd04f5e05935ff9ae5121c1ecb1d
Author: Bill Schmidt
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95882
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8323d09e82345a1ca39f6630cdd22ccf4ef38a84
commit r10-8679-g8323d09e82345a1ca39f6630cdd22ccf4ef38a84
Author: Mark Eggleston
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96819
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And bisecting with -std=c++20 instead of -std=c++20 confirms it was r11-2747.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96805
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gccbugbjorn at fahller dot se
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96819
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96819
--- Comment #9 from Patrick Palka ---
Is this with -std=c++20 or -std=c++17? From what I can tell r11-2747 adds a
fragment of code that is run only for c++20, and then r11-2748 makes it run for
c++17 as well. And only the first commit was backp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96819
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #4)
> > Looks like a dup of PR96805?
>
> Seems to have started at the following commit though.
And I don't see an IC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96819
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
In file included from /usr/include/c++/v1/__functional_base:18,
from /usr/include/c++/v1/tuple:152,
from 96819.C:1:
/usr/include/c++/v1/utility: In substitution of ‘templat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96819
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #4)
> Looks like a dup of PR96805?
Seems to have started at the following commit though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96819
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 49141
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49141&action=edit
Another preprocessed source
Using the attached file I get some other errors before the ICE. The attached
one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96819
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
Looks like a dup of PR96805?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96819
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96819
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-27
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96820
--- Comment #1 from cnsun at uwaterloo dot ca ---
Not sure if this is a dup to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96730
ftware/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 11.0.0 20200827 (experimental) [master revision
:1121fa585:3ae0cd94abc15e33dc06ca7a5f76f14b1d74129f] (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96819
--- Comment #1 from Björn Fahller ---
Compilation error message is:
In file included from :1:
/opt/compiler-explorer/clang-9.0.0/include/c++/v1/tuple: In substitution of
'template template template using
_PreferTupleLikeConstructor = std::__1::
x-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r11-2899-20200827080734-g989bc4ca2f2-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 11.0.0 20200827 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96819
Bug ID: 96819
Summary: ICE when reading from libc++ 9
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25814
--- Comment #17 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #16)
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #15)
> > David, presumably you're not working on this at the moment?
> You're correct. Sorry about that. Switching bac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95882
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c336eda750d4e7a0827fedf995da955d6d88d5ca
commit r11-2907-gc336eda750d4e7a0827fedf995da955d6d88d5ca
Author: Mark Eggleston
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96817
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oh plus this for the aborted init case:
@@ -351,7 +366,17 @@ namespace __cxxabiv1
#ifdef _GLIBCXX_USE_FUTEX
// If __atomic_* and futex syscall are supported, don't use any global
// mutex.
+#if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96817
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66146
Evgeny changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kisha-nik at mail dot ru
--- Comment #31 from E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96418
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from Andre V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96817
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Because it pessimizes single threaded programs. After we've made some other
changes that depend on a recent glibc, then we can avoid that pessimization.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96768
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-27
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96768
--- Comment #2 from Christophe Lyon ---
Send patch proposal:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-August/552798.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96768
--- Comment #1 from Christophe Lyon ---
This is related to comments 10,11,14,15 and 16 in the original PR94538.
In comment 14, Wilco suggested: "The best option is to do the same as
Cortex-M3: just switch off branch tables altogether and fall ba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96817
--- Comment #9 from Yuxuan Shui ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> It will work when Glibc defines all the pthread functions in libc.so and
> libpthread.so becomes empty.
Won't that mean libstdc++ will always use the thread-safe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95582
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #11)
> > Is there any progress about this PR? It's still blocking Ada bootstrap.
>
> Can you check the patch from commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96817
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'm also going to start using Glibc's __libc_single_threaded instead of
__gthread_active_p() for deciding whether to use atomics for reference counting
in shared_ptr and the old std::string.
Once reference
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96817
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It will work when Glibc defines all the pthread functions in libc.so and
libpthread.so becomes empty. There's not really any way to make it work until
then that wouldn't pessimize programs that are entirely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96817
--- Comment #6 from Yuxuan Shui ---
I meant to say "Is there anything ... can do, to improve the situation?"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96817
--- Comment #5 from Yuxuan Shui ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> it's been always that way - but yes, people repeatedly fall into this trap
If there anything libstdc++, or maybe the middle man (Mesa in my case) can do,
to impro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96812
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96814
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
