https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116028
--- Comment #14 from Surya Kumari Jangala ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #13)
> (In reply to Surya Kumari Jangala from comment #3)
> > The parameter register is
> > saved in a volatile register which is saved on stack in the entr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118745
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3a5882707df50ed29905b3c47cbaa0868ea248c9
commit r15-7366-g3a5882707df50ed29905b3c47cbaa0868ea248c9
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: W
Good morning,
I am an importer from Guangdong,China. Mainly engaged in fast-moving consumer
goods. I am interested in products related to smoothie. l would like to know
more about your company and hope that we can have a chance to cooperate, please
feel free to ask questions if you have any que
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80881
--- Comment #100 from Julian Waters ---
Great! This means it should be able to compile on MSYS2 now. Ready for
integration?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80881
--- Comment #99 from LIU Hao ---
binutils 2.44 is available in MSYS2 now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114522
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60381
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60381&action=edit
The aarch64 patch which I am testing
This fixes gcc.target/aarch64/aes_xor_combine.c but does not fix the arm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114522
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
I have a fix for aarch64's aes_xor_combine.c (arm fix can be implemented in a
similar fashion), this fixes the issue on the gimple level in the backend.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118754
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>From https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-October/47.html :
These
are failures like:
+FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/cunroll-14.c scan-tree-dump-not cunroll "Invalid sum"
+FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/predc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118754
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118753
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118754
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118754
Bug ID: 118754
Summary: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr106010-8c.c by
r15-6807-g68326d5d1a593d
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118753
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118753
Bug ID: 118753
Summary: [15 Regression] [meta-bug] GCC 15 Regression on x86
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: meta-bug
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114522
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> I think I have a fix for aes_xor_combine.c . Just testing it right now.
>
> In this case we have a 3->2 reduction and a simplification that has happened
> due t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114522
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think I have a fix for aes_xor_combine.c . Just testing it right now.
In this case we have a 3->2 reduction and a simplification that has happened
due to the const_vector of 0. And the new pattern no long
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114518
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114939
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I can't reproduce it on godbolt:
https://godbolt.org/z/7c9a47GGE
But I see it still fails in the test results.:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2025-February/837484.html
I was trying to figur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117434
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118734
Andrew Waterman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrew at sifive dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89764
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Summary|[12/13/14/15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117082
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #6)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5)
> > It isn't a dup of PR 117081 since it is a different failure.
>
> But it's caused by the same commit and the same rootcause?
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117081
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7)
> Created attachment 60350 [details]
> ira: Don't increase callee-saved register cost by 1000x
NOTE, r15-1619-g3b9b8d6cfdf593 improved 500.perlbench_r on many different
p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79786
--- Comment #11 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> > > Hongtao - do we care about -miamcu? Should we eventually deprecat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47485
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47485
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e41a5a2a0832509fa1c0b7cab0c8001fadbd23d4
commit r15-7365-ge41a5a2a0832509fa1c0b7cab0c8001fadbd23d4
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117082
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5)
> It isn't a dup of PR 117081 since it is a different failure.
But it's caused by the same commit and the same rootcause?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 85563, which changed state.
Bug 85563 Summary: [12/13/14/15 regression] -Wmaybe-uninitialized false alarm
regression with __builtin_unreachable and GCC 8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85563
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85563
Paul Eggert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84251
--- Comment #22 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the shrink wrapping issue with the abort was fixed with GCC 11.
But we still get:
```
ucomisd %xmm1, %xmm0
jp .L3
setnp %al
movl$0, %edx
movzbl %al,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118752
Bug ID: 118752
Summary: clang::no_sanitize scopped attribute should be an
alias to gnu::no_sanitize
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85563
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|deferred|
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93283
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78825
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||omerfaruko at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52809
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117955
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-02-04
Summary|[15 Regr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118749
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118749
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-02-04
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118751
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118751
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60380
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60380&action=edit
Self contained dejagnuified testcase
Note clang does not error out about the local class example either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115112
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115112
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4d0ff917528d1c59bfad5401274c5be71b7b
commit r15-7362-g4d0ff917528d1c59bfad5401274c5be71b7b
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118748
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
The other thing to try is `-fstack-reuse=none`. The produced code for GCC 15 in
this area looks ok but I could be wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94100
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94100
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115112
--- Comment #4 from Gaius Mulley ---
Created attachment 60379
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60379&action=edit
Proposed fix correcting location for INC and DEC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118751
Bug ID: 118751
Summary: optional diagnostic not given on invalid bitfield
reference in uninstantiated template
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94100
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94100
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f176028371c5b5339ca6d8d975d47b2347234af9
commit r15-7361-gf176028371c5b5339ca6d8d975d47b2347234af9
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118750
Bug ID: 118750
Summary: [14/15 Regression] ICE on associate with elemental
function with polymorphic array actual argument
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118748
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118748
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
(Of course, I haven't attempted to reproduce the bug or anything -- just built
Kvantum and made sure that one of the bug reports said 1.1.2 could hit it.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118083
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-02-04
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118749
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
bootstrap-lto'
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 15.0.1 20250204 (experimental)
5b46c01c50662a1c730e6658ea4307d4f80da578 (Gentoo 15.0. p, commit
601d2479a8464e3bf1fb53065109a027db7c93f1)
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118747
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Not sure what kind of regression this is. The situation is "interesting".
Replacing deferrred-length by fixed-length leads to a crash with gcc-14, too.
(e.g. when using character(len=3), allocat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118748
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Is there a way to get the preprocessed source for ThemeConfig.cpp which seems
like is where the miscompile is happening?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118748
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118748
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-02-04
Target Milestone|14.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118748
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
I guess
https://github.com/tsujan/Kvantum/discussions/999#discussioncomment-10902124 is
the key bit.
We've had various fixes for QVariant-style structures. Can you also try tip of
releases/gcc-14 (the latest co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118748
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118748
Bug ID: 118748
Summary: Segmentation fault in qt apps in aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94991
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118747
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Maybe there are multiple issues here conspiring.
Without elemental procedure, without array constructor:
program p
implicit none
type string_t
! character(len=:), allocatable :: string_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118671
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118671
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a64d9c96d8ebb0ba2a52daec85779b1a99c2f7fd
commit r15-7360-ga64d9c96d8ebb0ba2a52daec85779b1a99c2f7fd
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115568
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I've reproduced the bug and started to work on it. It looks like bug in
combination of inheritance and rematerialization. I'll try to fix it on this
week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118739
--- Comment #11 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Oh, we have this issue:
Trying 16, 22, 21 -> 23:
16: r106:QI=flags:CCNO>0
22: {r120:QI=r106:QI^0x1;clobber flags:CC;}
REG_UNUSED flags:CC
21: r119:QI=flags:CCNO<=0
REG_DEAD flags:CCNO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118739
--- Comment #12 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #10)
> r15-268-g9dbff9c05520a7
This commit just prevents the transformation in Comment #11 from happening,
because it skips an early combination of:
Trying 15 -> 16:
1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118731
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118731
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:64c66f5bce60fcc4a943bcac1865db2a72aaa1bd
commit r15-7359-g64c66f5bce60fcc4a943bcac1865db2a72aaa1bd
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118739
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15 Regression] wrong code |[15 Regression] wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118731
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118731
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE with iterator in|assertion failure with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118747
Bug ID: 118747
Summary: [15 Regression]: seg fault on accessing an elemental
procedure dummy argument's deferred-length componeent
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86769
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60376|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117798
--- Comment #10 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #9)
> F2023 states
>
> The following Fortran 2018 features might have a different interpretation
> under this document.
>
> After an allocatable deferred
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117248
--- Comment #28 from John David Anglin ---
Problem worked around on hppa by commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=88bb18ccd87d43abe401a1228cc337e4b46be88d.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118715
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118739
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> So r115's value will be 0 or 1 (STORE_FLAG_VALUE) so (gt:QI r115 0) is the
> same as (subreg:QI r115). Unless I am missing something here.
No, you are right. Tak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118739
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #8 from And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118243
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118243
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
This is an equivalent testcase without OpenMP and especially without iostream,
making dump reading a bit easier:
using complex_t = double __complex__;
struct A {
complex_t value;
A(double r) : valu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108016
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So just a couple thoughts.
If we look at the .expand dump we have:
(insn 23 22 24 6 (set (mem/c:QI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 129 virtual-stack-vars)
(const_int -4 [0xfffc])) [1 MEM
[
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116010
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Thiago Bauermann :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bcd3886e6692ba4b7127debcdfe4890199ec9e54
commit r15-7356-gbcd3886e6692ba4b7127debcdfe4890199ec9e54
Author: Thiago Jung Bauermann
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86769
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60374|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118739
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #5)
> So, we have:
>
> Trying 15 -> 16:
>15: flags:CCNO=cmp(r115:SI,0)
> REG_DEAD r115:SI
>16: r106:QI=flags:CCNO>0
> Successfully matched this instructio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118743
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|non-64bit integer arguments |non-64bit integer arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118743
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64-|aarch64*
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115112
--- Comment #3 from Gaius Mulley ---
$ gm2 -fiso -g -fm2-whole-program -fm2-dump=all
-fm2-dump-filter=m2iso.TextIO.ReadRestLine testrestline.mod
$ tail -15 a-testrestline.mod.002l.gimple
(*
/home/gaius/opt/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/15.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116028
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110370
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115703
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117818
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
is that powerpc64le or powerpc{,64} big endian? (or both)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118243
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Indeed we don't seem to split a vector in the same way:
typedef int complex_t __attribute__((vector_size(sizeof(int)*2)));
struct A {
complex_t value;
A(double r) : value{0, r} {}
};
[[gnu::noipa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118243
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117778
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14/15 Regression] ICE |[14 Regression] ICE
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118243
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117778
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e6e40cb7459c9b21b291fe28e46cd4ebcd924dff
commit r15-7355-ge6e40cb7459c9b21b291fe28e46cd4ebcd924dff
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118718
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
