https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120941
--- Comment #34 from Filip Kastl ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #33)
> Created attachment 61995 [details]
> An updated patch
>
> Please try this.
The updated patch helps! We go from 233s to 163s. So the patch reverts the
slowdown. I'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121303
ptomsich at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ptomsich at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231
--- Comment #38 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 121310 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121310
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121310
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
One thing I am worried about is that -fno-strict-aliasing works but when I
tweaked the reinterpet_cast that does the comparison, it didn't help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121310
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 62003
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=62003&action=edit
widen_mul_test.cxx.xz
Attached a much larger testcase too which is minimally modified to just be
standalone.
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121310
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121310
Bug ID: 121310
Summary: [16 regression] highway miscompiled on arm32
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120409
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> The .006t.original dump differences between -m32 and -mx32
>
> Where does this difference come from?
this function:
OptionalPromiseReturn
OptionalPromise::get_ret
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121308
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 62001
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=62001&action=edit
Patch which I am testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119382
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by jeevitha :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9a5a5e87ca6fa5087b8151816d90b734451e5bc4
commit r15-10155-g9a5a5e87ca6fa5087b8151816d90b734451e5bc4
Author: Jeevitha
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121308
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The reason why this didn't show up For Richard; is on word_mode==DImode
targets is because the self tests does NOT test DImode and TImode as TImode
requires wide_const_int. Anyways I have a fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121308
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-07-30
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121308
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121309
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Sorry wrong bug #.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 121308 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121306
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121309
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121309
Bug ID: 121309
Summary: [16 Regression] ICE: in assert_rtx_eq_at, at
selftest-rtl.cc:57: test_scalar_int_ext_ops: FAIL:
ASSERT_RTX_EQ (lowpart_subreg ( ... ), ... ) during
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121306
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> I am going to file the selftest issue with -m32 seperately.
PR 121308.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121308
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121308
Bug ID: 121308
Summary: [16 Regression] self tests fail with -m32 on x86_64
after r16-2614-g965564eafb721f
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Key
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121306
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> On x86-64, I also saw
>
> Running target unix/-m32
> Using /usr/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file for
> target.
> Using /usr/share/dejagnu/c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121306
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr115102.c scan-assembler bswaphisi2_lowpart
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/xchg-4.c scan-assembler rolw
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/xchg-4.c scan-assembler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121306
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121305
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121306
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49774
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
LLVM discussion around restrict:
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-yet-another-llvm-restrict-support/87612
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121279
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
I should mention that LLVM has been having some discussions in the area of bool
not being 0/1 too:
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/defining-what-happens-when-a-bool-isn-t-0-or-1/86778/17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121307
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Sorry, ignore the last comment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121307
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
In bootstrap-ubsan.mk, we do:
```
POSTSTAGE1_LDFLAGS += -fsanitize=undefined -static-libubsan -DUBSAN_BOOTSTRAP \
-B$$r/prev-$(TARGET_SUBDIR)/libsanitizer/ \
-B$$r/pre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121307
Bug ID: 121307
Summary: Parallel build issue with bootstrap-ubsan
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121295
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-July/691079.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121302
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121302
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ef49f8e9480129433cc803625ae8c6877cf59453
commit r16-2620-gef49f8e9480129433cc803625ae8c6877cf59453
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121304
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
... ditto vectorizable_store.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121306
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121306
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the backend had to changed before in r14-2065-g8f6c747c8638d4 due to
r14-2047-gd0e891406b16dc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120409
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
The .006t.original dump differences between -m32 and -mx32
;; Function folly::OptionalPromiseReturn
folly::OptionalPromise::get_return_object() (null)
;; enabled by -tree-original
-< = TARGET_EXPR = TARGET_E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121304
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> I think the bug is in vectorizable_load where memory_access_type might be
> uninitialized.
>
> vect_memory_access_type memory_access_type;
I'll play with this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121305
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121306
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61999
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61999&action=edit
Reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121306
Bug ID: 121306
Summary: [16 Regression] testcase failures after
r16-2614-g965564eafb721f on x86_64
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121305
Bug ID: 121305
Summary: -Wunused-parameter shouldn't warn about naked
functions not using their params
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121304
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think the bug is in vectorizable_load where memory_access_type might be
uninitialized.
vect_memory_access_type memory_access_type;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121304
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Err, sorry, I lied, it's:
if ((*memory_access_type == VMAT_ELEMENTWISE
|| *memory_access_type == VMAT_STRIDED_SLP)
which makes more sense.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121304
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
> tree-vect- stmts.cc::8: runtime error: load of value 3026314944, which is
> not a valid value for type 'vect_memory_access_type'
> #0 0x556ebb877e42 in get_group_load_store_type
> /usr/src/debug/sys-d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121304
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
(Not 100% sure that's the responsible command, I can check it in a bit, but a
bunch of things trigger it.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121304
Bug ID: 121304
Summary: tree-vect-stmts.cc::8: runtime error: load of
value 3026314944, which is not a valid value for type
'vect_memory_access_type'
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120427
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61996|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121303
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68938
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduded testcase:
```
struct f
{
template
f(const T&){}
void operator()(int){}
};
template
void bar()
{
auto print = f([&print](int n){ print(n); });
print(1);
}
int main()
{
bar();
return 0;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121292
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68938
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jirehguo at tju dot edu.cn
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121292
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121292
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Better testcase:
```
template
void foo() {
auto f = [&] { f(); };
f();
}
int main() {
//foo();
}
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121292
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Summary|GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90291
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|121299 |94404
Alias|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90291
--- Comment #23 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p1701r1.pdf
Any word from the standards committee on this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90291
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||development at jordi dot
vilar.cat
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121299
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121299
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Related paper:
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p1701r1.pdf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121299
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
(note edg also accepts it).
inline namespace B
{
namespace C
{
void foo();
}
}
namespace C
{
void bar();
}
What GCC, clang and EDG all do for the above is the last `names
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106289
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-07-29
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106289
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||familiebaumanns at gmail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121297
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121297
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://godbolt.org/z/rGdEx |
|Eb7h
disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-20250729192102-r16-2618-g241380c6d632eb-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 16.0.0 20250729 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121302
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-07-29
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121302
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|bootstrap |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #6 from An
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121302
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I suspect r16-2614-g965564eafb721f, I am getting a large number of test
> failures too.
r16-2614-g965564eafb721f did cause
c-c++-common/torture/builtin-arith-ov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121302
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> r16-2603-g9c48cbb2598518 is OK for me, not tried later yet.
>
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > I am getting a large number of test failures too.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121302
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I thought avoid-store-forwarding was not enabled yet. Because that is the only
change that might an effect.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121302
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120427
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121302
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #1 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120427
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 61996
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61996&action=edit
A patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121302
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121302
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121302
Bug ID: 121302
Summary: [16 Regression] Bootstrap failed with ada
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121301
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121301
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>-fkeep-inline-functions
Why are you using this flag?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121215
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121301
Bug ID: 121301
Summary: Errors in system includes when compiling with -O3
-fkeep-inline-functions -Werror=maybe-uninitialized
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121215
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:688f1947bd5453632a8973d1d5fba68169c9d1a9
commit r16-2619-g688f1947bd5453632a8973d1d5fba68169c9d1a9
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121081
--- Comment #3 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
int * _Atomic __attribute__((visibility(""))) a;
int * _Atomic a;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121081
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120427
--- Comment #11 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #10)
> (In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #9)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #2)
> > > We shouldn't transform "mov $-1,reg" to "push $-1; pop reg".
> > > We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121217
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120941
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61973|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121208
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c6d1f58da7eb72e8bac307d342e4655012b36a89
commit r16-2617-gc6d1f58da7eb72e8bac307d342e4655012b36a89
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Tue Jul 29 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120621
--- Comment #18 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Robert Dubner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:79c7ed9d45d1862fb1ac4e6f3653bf8892c3afe6
commit r15-10148-g79c7ed9d45d1862fb1ac4e6f3653bf8892c3afe6
Author: Rainer Orth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120794
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Robert Dubner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d6115f773e868b94a5195b73ba249cf86b22deb2
commit r15-10142-gd6115f773e868b94a5195b73ba249cf86b22deb2
Author: James K. Lowde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119337
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Robert Dubner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4a3e130f39e5b4dbeea0f7a116afa4545453b213
commit r15-10146-g4a3e130f39e5b4dbeea0f7a116afa4545453b213
Author: Robert Dubner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120779
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Robert Dubner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d6115f773e868b94a5195b73ba249cf86b22deb2
commit r15-10142-gd6115f773e868b94a5195b73ba249cf86b22deb2
Author: James K. Lowde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120765
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Robert Dubner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4a3e130f39e5b4dbeea0f7a116afa4545453b213
commit r15-10146-g4a3e130f39e5b4dbeea0f7a116afa4545453b213
Author: Robert Dubner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120402
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Robert Dubner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:84296ba2a410193f795456392ca96718af7166b6
commit r15-10151-g84296ba2a410193f795456392ca96718af7166b6
Author: Robert Dubner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120621
--- Comment #17 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Robert Dubner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9717324b7e867460f0e4023b12ad4a9d3633d889
commit r15-10140-g9717324b7e867460f0e4023b12ad4a9d3633d889
Author: James K. Lowd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120791
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Robert Dubner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d6115f773e868b94a5195b73ba249cf86b22deb2
commit r15-10142-gd6115f773e868b94a5195b73ba249cf86b22deb2
Author: James K. Lowde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120765
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Robert Dubner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d780100c63ffd3b96c4be218edc60627dba1fcc1
commit r15-10147-gd780100c63ffd3b96c4be218edc60627dba1fcc1
Author: James K. Lowde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120790
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Robert Dubner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d6115f773e868b94a5195b73ba249cf86b22deb2
commit r15-10142-gd6115f773e868b94a5195b73ba249cf86b22deb2
Author: James K. Lowde
1 - 100 of 217 matches
Mail list logo
