https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121043
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121043
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #10)
> Andre has sent a fixer patch for these. Building now and will test.
Does not work, disregard.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121043
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Andre has sent a fixer patch for these. Building now and will test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121043
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #3)
> There are a series of patches involved here.
>
> The first failure occurs at:
>
> commit 1be1970f97d05a07851cd826132fcf466827ebe5
> Author: Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121043
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #2)
> > However, I do see the following on gcc-15 pulled this morning.
>
> Can you check what branch you checked out? Be
||2025-07-14
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Thankyou Damian for reducing this one. I can confirm it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121043
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I narrowed it down.
I modified with some convenient prints:
program register3
implicit none
integer, parameter :: invalid_rank=-2
integer :: np=invalid_rank,array_size=10
integer,allocatable :: arr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121043
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I assume the first failure was fixed by the second patch. There is no log entry
for that test. I had to terminate it. I have let it run for over 30 minutes
before doing so.
The test is being run with two i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121043
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The log from the first failure:
23/88 Testing: sync_team
23/88 Test: sync_team
Command: "/usr/bin/bash" "/home/jerry/dev/opencoarrays-clean/bin/cafrun" "-np"
"8"
"/home/jerry/dev/opencoarrays-clean/bin/Open
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121043
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-07-13
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121043
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
While bisecting on gcc-15 branch I can not reproduce the OpenCoarray test
failure. However, I do see the following on gcc-15 pulled this morning. Clean
build.
FAIL: gfortran.dg/goacc/parameter-3.f90 -O (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121043
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Starting with a clean build directory, building OpenCoarrays works but the
tests fail. In particular, Test #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117077
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120847
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120847
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 61778
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61778&action=edit
Test case I am testing with.
This requires no input files and uses the default settings. I will see if I
can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120847
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114611
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I have not had much time to finish this one. I will try to get to it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
--- Comment #23 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Andre Vehreschild from comment #22)
--- snip---
>
> I can only ask you to do a clean build and maybe also drop the installation
> directory. Sometimes build systems find funny things and then t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119948
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119948
--- Comment #23 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Paul is out for about two weeks. I have appled the two patches involved to 15
and if testing is clean, I will commit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120743
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed||2025-06-17
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I am putting together a python script to enable the gfortran maintainers to do
quicker testing of the gfortran.dg testing. I though I would open this PR so we
can track review
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119856
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120514
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
As a followup. Thanks for the hints about what is going on. I recently
upgraded from Fedora 41 to 42. The build I was attempting was a clean build, I
always start with an empty build directory.
I was susp
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I am seeing this.
In file included from
/home/jerry/dev/usr/include/c++/16.0.0/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bits/gthr-default.h:35,
from
/home/jerry/dev/usr/include/c++/16.0.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119948
--- Comment #21 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Damian Rouson from comment #20)
> Should this issue be marked as resolved? If so, can the fix be back ported
> to the 15 branch?
I think it is resolved. It could be backported. Paul if you ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119856
--- Comment #14 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 61556
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61556&action=edit
Patch to correct runtime behavior of repeated use of the same format
This patch corrects a latent problem. ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119856
--- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Walter Spector from comment #12)
> > Definately not right.
> >
> > This is some different Issue.
>
> If it would help, I'd be happy to submit another PR.
No need. I do have an idea why this i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119856
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27436
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Currently.
! From PR27436
write(*,'(abc)') n ! We throw a compile time error here.
write(10,"(i7,(' abcd'))") n, n ! We throw a run time error here.
10 print *, "Hello World!"
end
Comment the first
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27436
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119856
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #8)
> At line 7 of file newby.f90 (unit = 6, file = 'stdout')
> Fortran runtime error: Missing comma between descriptors
> (AI5)
> ^
Oops, I copied the wrong o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119856
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Walter Spector from comment #7)
> Confirmed that the compiler now diagnoses the missing commas. Thanks!
>
After taking out the iostat so I could see the error message I am getting the
followin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119856
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119856
Bug 119856 depends on bug 83282, which changed state.
Bug 83282 Summary: missing comma in format changes output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83282
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83282
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119856
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Note: I biffed the PR number in the log.
The master branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e2bf0b3910de7e65363435f0a7fa606e2448a677
commit r16-939-ge2bf0b3910de7e65363435f0a7fa60
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119586
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109345
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101735
--- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #12)
> Created attachment 61529 [details]
> Fix for the breakage by r16-914-g787a8dec1acedf
OK to push after testing. I am rebuilding now and can do for you. It has to be
l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101735
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #7)
> > Ruuning tests right now to see if this has caused some breakage.
>
> Are you also hit by r16-916-g517c9487f8fdc4 which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101735
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #37 from Jerry DeLisle ---
With this now pushed, I plan to backport to 15 in a few days. I also want to
revise the langauge of the error messages to be clearer. This will wiggle on
several existing test cases so I want it to be a se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120431
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61475|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61445|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #33 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #32)
> The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle
> :
Preparing for the backport of the follow-on patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #31 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Patch submitted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2025-May/062177.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61307|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #29 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Steve, I am still working on it. Always other things getting me in the time
domain. (poles and zeros so to speak, LOL)
I do like some of the checks in Comment #27.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #28 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I was also working on a patch as well and it occurred to me that we need the
logic to go like this with a helper function:
// helper function, possibly two arguments here for checking
bool checkthearg (ac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #24 from Jerry DeLisle ---
It is interestingly complex. As I try different test cases I learn new things.
For example this error is caught already somewhere else in the code path. I am
going to identify where tomorrow. This may be a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #22 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I forgot to mention that when you flip the test example around:
print *, c_associated(42, c_loc(val))
It also gives an internal error. So I am taking care of it as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120179
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #20 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Obviously, LOL, I threw myself off the trail. Thanks Steve.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120111
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to john.harper from comment #6)
> Thank you. I haven't changed my LD_FORTRAN_PATH for a long time and the
> only things in it are to do with intel/oneapi. But there are a lot of
> lib64 directorie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #18 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Some fall out after the commit. This may be an unrelated regression on 16.
On 5/6/25 10:59 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 07:43:41PM +0200, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>>
>> the new logic misses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120111
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to john.harper from comment #4)
> Sorry if I did something wrong when installing gfortran 15 from source
> tarball gcc-15.1.0.tar.xz in a Linux Ubuntu system. Maybe your gfortran 15
> is not ident
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #2)
Disregard this, sorry for the noise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #16 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Patch submitted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2025-May/062094.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #15 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The patch regressions tests OK. I dont know how to do a test case that requires
two files to compile. I am looking through the test suite for the incantations.
||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #2)
> This is https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88052
> which you submitted. I don't have 15.1 in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #14 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 61307
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61307&action=edit
Prelimnary patch to fix this.
With the attached patch this case compiles and runs.
$ cat z2.f90
program tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #8)
> program tests_gtk_sup
>use gtk_sup
>implicit none
>type(c_ptr), target :: val
>print *, c_associated(val, c_loc(val))
>print *, c_associated(c_loc(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I have a patch now that addresses the original problem and regression tests
fine whcih I will submit to the gfortran list. Before I do that I want to
explore these other cases given in Comment #8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #7)
> > That is exactly the patch I was testing Steve.
>
> I assume that you've found that you'll need to
> deal with both c_pt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
That is exactly the patch I was testing Steve.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Vincent was able to reduce this further. Two files, gtk_sup.f90 and test.f90.
$ cat gtk_sup.f90
module gtk_sup
use, intrinsic :: iso_c_binding
end module gtk_sup
$ cat test.f90
program tests_gtk_sup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I should mention That this issue was first identified by Vincent Magnin.
Vincent has also confirmed the issue on gfortran 11.5 on Ubuntu. There is also
a variation where it compiles and segfaults at run tim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
With the original test case, the following eliminates the ICE.
diff --git a/examples/tests_gtk_sup.f90 b/examples/tests_gtk_sup.f90
index 8f8168b..ab47c8d 100644
--- a/examples/tests_gtk_sup.f90
+++ b/examp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I am getting an ICE from one of the example programs for gtk-fortran. I am
working to reduce the test case. At the point of the ICE both of the arguments
to gfc_check_c_associated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119986
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119948
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Occam's razor suggests we go with Paul's patch. Paul, do you want to handle the
commit-ish work or I can do it for you. Just let me know.
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
A small adjustment to the comment in the patch:
/* If sym is for a result-name, its pure attribute may
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79330
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119836
--- Comment #21 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #20)
> Jerry, thanks for getting this in gcc15.
Yes, Jakub gave me the OK. Thanks for your support as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119836
--- Comment #18 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #17)
> Fixed on 16-trunk for far without fallout, so adjusting summary.
>
> Do we need to ping the RM for backport permission?
I have pinged.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119889
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119889
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119502
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119836
--- Comment #15 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Building with Steve's latest patch now. If all passes here I will commit to 16
and request to backport to 15. Thanks Steve.
||83282
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2025-04-18
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119836
--- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #12)
> On 4/17/25 23:59, pault at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > Is it worth reverting or fixing this before the 15-branch release? After
> > all,
> > the bug made its way
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119836
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I get one test failure:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/do_concurrent_all_clauses.f90 -O (test for errors, line
21)
from:
! { dg-do compile }
program do_concurrent_all_clauses
implicit none
integer :: i, arr(10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119836
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119836
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
You have a great crystal ball.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119502
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Interestingly PR 48618 has a slightly different interpretation of the standard.
I will be checking the 2023 to see.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119502
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119502
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119502
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119406
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119403
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119406
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
1 - 100 of 2334 matches
Mail list logo
