https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64609
Chengnian Sun changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|No -Wbool-compare warning |No -Wbool-compare warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64231
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64690
--- Comment #1 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Thanks, I'll send the fix shortly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64704
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64665
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64511
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64511
>
> --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Note, this problem went away with r219646.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64703
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64313
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 21 09:04:53 2015
New Revision: 219928
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219928&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-21 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/64313
* tree-core.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64313
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64612
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64612
--- Comment #12 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 34511
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34511&action=edit
Solaris 10/x86 assembler output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64612
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
g++.dg/abi/comdat1.C is guarded with { target *-*-*gnu* }, perhaps this test
should be too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64612
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> g++.dg/abi/comdat1.C is guarded with { target *-*-*gnu* }, perhaps this test
> should be too.
While that would work, it's overeager: the test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64669
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
There is no
typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
in the testcase
(or sed -i -e s/size_t/__SIZE_TYPE__/g pr64669.C ).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64689
--- Comment #2 from Philipp Gschwandtner ---
Thanks for the quick reply, it's an excerpt from a larger code and I wasn't
aware that it's actually not C-compliant.
Maybe gcc bug submission guidelines should include compiling/running with
-fsaniti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64612
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If you are willing to cook up an effective-target for that in
lib/target-supports.exp, sure, go ahead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64689
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Philipp Gschwandtner from comment #2)
> Thanks for the quick reply, it's an excerpt from a larger code and I wasn't
> aware that it's actually not C-compliant.
>
> Maybe gcc bug submission
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64703
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64700
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64703
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> The tree level gets this right and on x86_64 RTL expansion looks ok as well.
> Can it be that PPC relies on REG_POINTER stuff and maybe the function
> pointer is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64693
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64703
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab ---
A conversion between an integer type and a pointer type is
implementation-defined, not undefined.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58400
--- Comment #9 from Chen Gang ---
(In reply to Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke from comment #8)
> Created attachment 32285 [details]
> patch made as an example how to debug gcc
>
> here is a patch - not regtested.
> you might also consider to put the thr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64511
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The #c8 case can be easily fixed:
--- gcc/simplify-rtx.c.jj2015-01-19 09:31:25.0 +0100
+++ gcc/simplify-rtx.c2015-01-21 10:59:03.808280655 +0100
@@ -4589,7 +4589,8 @@ simplify_relational_oper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64511
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64706
Bug ID: 64706
Summary: -fsanitize=vptr is not documented
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentation
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64703
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra ---
Re comment #2, yes I agree that conversion between void* or pointer to object
and pointer to function is not strictly allowed. Fixing that by way of a union
was one of the first things I tried, before looking a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64368
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #14 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64535
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> If reading 15.1.4 (Exception Handling / Throwing an exception) correctly
> then allocation happens in an unspecified way but according to 3.7.3.1
> which spe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64707
Bug ID: 64707
Summary: FAIL: libgomp.c/target-9.c with
-ftree-parallelize-loops=0
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64707
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34512
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34512&action=edit
tentative patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
--- Comment #11 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #10)
> > Perhaps for consistency, we should mark both fopenmp and fopenacc
> > as LTO options?
>
> Not sure to understand. Is it not what the patch a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64707
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Wouldn't it be better to just add || flag_ltrans || flag_wpa to the GOMP/GOACC
builtin guard conditions?
I mean, relying on global flags here when they are combined from many sources,
where some may be compil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64706
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 34513
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34513&action=edit
gcc5-pr64706.patch
Possible patch. Not sure about the wording.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64708
Bug ID: 64708
Summary: libgccjit installed twice
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: jit
Assignee: d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64706
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #34513|0 |1
is obsolete|
Friend at the Mission called "Buckskin Alick," who had lived there all through
the war without reading a newspaper or changing his clothes. As nails were
scarce, Buckskin Alick had con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64709
Bug ID: 64709
Summary: Bogus -Wmissing-field-initializers warning
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64627
physik3 at gmx dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64709
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
We shouldn't warn on { 0 }.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64707
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34515
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34515&action=edit
tentative patch, adding flag_ltrans || flag_wpa to the GOMP builtin guard
conditions
(In reply to Jak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
--- Comment #12 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34516
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34516&action=edit
tentative patch, adding flag_ltrans || flag_wpa to the GOACC builtin guard
conditions
Tentative patc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64709
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
Summary|Bogus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
>
> --- Comment #12 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Created attachment 34516
> -->
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
--- Comment #14 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #13)
> But I prever -fopenmp/-fopenacc as LTO
> options.
>
What is the rationale for the preference ?
If we go with -fopenmp/-fopenacc as LTO options,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64709
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
>
> --- Comment #14 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64709
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60322
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vehre at gmx dot de
--- Comment #6 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64710
Bug ID: 64710
Summary: [5 Regression] lto1: internal compiler error:
Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64710
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64709
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
BTW, untested patch (dg.exp passes).
diff --git a/gcc/c/c-typeck.c b/gcc/c/c-typeck.c
index f39dfdd..53d1a16 100644
--- a/gcc/c/c-typeck.c
+++ b/gcc/c/c-typeck.c
@@ -7556,20 +7556,28 @@ pop_init_level (loc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64709
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
What value will constructor_zeroinit have if it has a single element which is
not integer_zerop? Should we set it to 0 in that case?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64669
--- Comment #13 from Jiong Wang ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #11)
> Created attachment 34506 [details]
> proposed patch
>
> This is what I'm currently testing.
passed profiledbootstrap on top of 219849.
spec2kint/spec2k6int b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64277
--- Comment #6 from Igor Zamyatin ---
cunroll phase 7 times completely unrolls post-loop that was generated by
vectorizer.
And later vrp complains on those unrolled iterations.
Note that for the test without if (nc > 3), i.e.
void foo(short a[
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64368
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5 Regression] Several |[5 Regression] Several
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64711
Bug ID: 64711
Summary: Unconsistency with -fnon-call-exceptions when used
along inline and ipa optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64711
--- Comment #1 from Jorge Bellon ---
There is a typo in the details:
5) Compilation using -fipa-pure-const only
Same as (4).
7) Compilation using -fipa-pure-const -finline -finline-functions
Same as (4).
9) Compilation using -fno-ipa-pure-const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64712
Bug ID: 64712
Summary: FAIL: gnat.dg/unchecked_convert1.adb execution test
(x86_64/-m32)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
=infra --with-mpfr=infra --with-mpc=infra
--with-isl=infra --disable-bootstrap --enable-checking=yes,rtl
--enable-languages=c,fortran,ada,java,objc,c++,go,obj-c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 5.0.0 20150121 (experimental) (GCC)
Revision: r219928
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64669
--- Comment #14 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Wed Jan 21 15:47:49 2015
New Revision: 219951
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219951&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/64669
* ccmp.c (used_in_cond_stmt_p): Remove.
(expand_ccmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64669
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62078
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64713
Bug ID: 64713
Summary: Missed ccmp optimization
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62078
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64368
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #15)
> Note that the last failures belong to another PR: they come from a later
> commit and I see several of them on darwin (see FX tests). I have no
> incli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64714
Bug ID: 64714
Summary: [5.0 regression] __builtin_object_size (..., 1) fails
to locate subobject
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64715
Bug ID: 64715
Summary: [5.0 regression] __builtin_object_size (..., 1) fails
to locate subobject
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64715
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64714
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64715
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
*** Bug 64714 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64716
Bug ID: 64716
Summary: Missed vectorization in a hot code of SPEC2000 ammp
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64677
--- Comment #11 from Sanjay Patel ---
(In reply to Mikhail Maltsev from comment #10)
> C++11 supports constexpr (and std::complex has constexpr constructor).
Ah, that makes sense. Yes, we're only generating the answer using MPFR with
c++11 and o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64717
Bug ID: 64717
Summary: -fsanitize=vptr leads to warning: ‘’ may be
used uninitialized in this function
[-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64710
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64712
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
Summary|FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64715
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64716
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Created attachment 34523
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34523&action=edit
rectmm.c code annotated by gcov to see other hot code parts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64718
Bug ID: 64718
Summary: Bad 16-bit bswap replacement
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64710
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
It was caused by r219910.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64710
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64713
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I have this too even before the recent patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60211
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
roger pack changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rogerdpack at gmail dot com
--- Comment #19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64695
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63576
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64123
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64710
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64718
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
--- Comment #20 from Marek Polacek ---
Sorry, the patch hasn't been applied to 4.9 nor 4.8 branch yet, and I don't
think it should be backported as-is, because just today I found out that the
patch contains a bug; see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64716
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57023
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Jan 21 19:40:54 2015
New Revision: 219963
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219963&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-21 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/57023
* dependency.c (ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64718
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thomas.preudhomme at arm dot
com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64718
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
A run-time testcase:
[hjl@gnu-mic-2 gcc-regression]$ cat pr64718.c
int
__attribute__ ((noinline, noclone))
swap(int x)
{
return (unsigned short)((unsigned short)x << 8 | (unsigned short)x >> 8);
}
int a = 0x123
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64718
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i686-pc-linux-gnu |x86
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64716
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Say on:
a2->qyz -= (k2+ka2+kb2)*yt*zt;
a1->qyz -= (k2+ka2+kb2)*yt*zt;
a2->qzz -= k2*(zt2 - 1./3) + ka2*(zt2 - 1./8)+kb2*(zt2-1./14) ;
a1->qzz -= k2*(zt2 - 1./3) + ka2*(zt2 - 1./8)+kb2*(zt2-1./14) ;
it see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #8 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Created attachment 34524
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34524&action=edit
patch to try AIX bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #9 from Igor Zamyatin ---
David, could you please try attached patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64704
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maltsevm at gmail dot com
--- Comment
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
