https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62117
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64893
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is the "unincluded" version of the code:
#include
int
search_line_fast (uint32x2_t t)
{
return vget_lane_u32 (t, 0);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64893
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64893
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 34642
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34642&action=edit
The patch which fixes the C++ failure (but does not include a testcase yet)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64897
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64896
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64756
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64893
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64884
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64047
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64898
Bug ID: 64898
Summary: [5 Regression] qtgui-4.8.6 build error
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64898
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
s/extern function/extern function pointer/
This is a variable of a function pointer type.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64898
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64756
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64756
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 34643
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34643&action=edit
gcc5-pr64756.patch
I'd say we just should never record volatile MEMs into the hash table, this
patch attempts t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64898
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64898
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62258
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #21 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
In 17_intro/headers/c++*/all_attributes.cc, c++* stands for c++1998, c++200x,
and c++2014. The first instance is "fixed" now, the two other ones are still
failing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #22 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #21)
> In 17_intro/headers/c++*/all_attributes.cc, c++* stands for c++1998,
> c++200x, and c++2014. The first instance is "fixed" now, the two other ones
> are st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64896
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 34644
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34644&action=edit
unreduced testcase
I'm having a hard time reducing the testcase.
Unreduced testcase attached.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64885
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64899
Bug ID: 64899
Summary: Illegal dynamic initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64885
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ditto the header guards like
GCC_GTHR_POSIX_H
GCC_GTHR_SINGLE_H
GCC_GTHR_H
and macros like
GTHREAD_USE_WEAK
HIDE_EXPORTS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64899
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64791
--- Comment #9 from Ville Voutilainen ---
I can't see any warnings with my trunk build from today, either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58400
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64848
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64900
Bug ID: 64900
Summary: gotools don't link on Solaris 11/x86
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64900
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61229
Thomas Huxhorn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thomas.huxhorn at web dot de
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62251
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62251
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
Or, alternatively and possible better: to understand why there is now a ULP
difference, which didn't exist in GCC 4.9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64842
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64901
Bug ID: 64901
Summary: Overriding final function defined out of line does not
lead to an error
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64901
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64901
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ville.voutilainen at
gmail do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64896
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63790
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
As far as I know we're clean but on the XFAIL of
g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-reinterpret1.C which was acked by Jason though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64810
--- Comment #22 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Mon Feb 2 15:21:16 2015
New Revision: 220347
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220347&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR jit/64810: support DImode on arm
gcc/jit/ChangeLog:
PR jit/648
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64231
--- Comment #18 from Tejas Belagod ---
Author: belagod
Date: Mon Feb 2 15:54:59 2015
New Revision: 220348
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220348&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-02 Tejas Belagod
Andrew Pinski
Jakub Jelin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64231
Tejas Belagod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64896
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
markus@x4 tmp % cat SVGAllInOne.ii
class A
{
int m_x, m_y;
};
class B
{
A m_location;
int m_size;
};
class C
{
public:
virtual B m_fn1 () const;
};
class D
{
B m_fn2 () const;
int m_fn3 () c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64791
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64903
Bug ID: 64903
Summary: is_partitioned should not apply a predicate more than
(last - first) times
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64810
--- Comment #23 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Mon Feb 2 16:11:15 2015
New Revision: 220351
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220351&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR jit/64810: fix for arm_option_override
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR jit/6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64001
--- Comment #7 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Sorry, I missed that this only happens with 4.9. Unfortunately, I was also
unable to reproduce it with 4.9.
I have no idea what the problem is. If you can still reproduce it, run it
under strace to see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64903
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63875
--- Comment #2 from Teresa Johnson ---
Ping. This is still an issue on trunk (as of today at r220345).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64467
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Like some of the BSDs, newlib provides a _B bitmask, but that does not
correspond to isblank so can't be used. The _B mask doesn't match the TAB
character, but isblank must match that. The newlib isblank ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64885
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yeah, they're a mess.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #23 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> does my incremental patch fix that on Darwin14 - I can send it to you if
> cut & paste mangled.
If you mean the patch in comment 19, yes it does (I only applied it for c++200x
and c++2014).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64899
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64893
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64878
--- Comment #4 from Sebastian Pop ---
The problem is in the recursion step of
fsm_find_control_statement_thread_paths:
for (i = 0; i < gimple_phi_num_args (phi); i++)
{
tree arg = gimple_phi_arg_def (phi, i);
basic_block bbi =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61601
--- Comment #8 from Maksymilian Arciemowicz ---
> there's no memory problem, it just takes exponentially long time to run
> (which is expected when using backtracking).
call it cpu resource exhaustion (CWE-400)
>
> To avoid it, you can use Tho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64905
Bug ID: 64905
Summary: unsigned short is loaded with 4-byte load (movl)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63566
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |hubicka at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64813
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64896
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64906
Bug ID: 64906
Summary: -fsanitize=integer-divide-by-zero creates false
-Wmaybe-uninitialized warning
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64907
Bug ID: 64907
Summary: Suboptimal code (saving rbx on stack in order to save
another reg in rbx)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64905
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64905
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 34647
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34647&action=edit
A patch
Does this patch make any sense?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64907
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64123
--- Comment #23 from xur at google dot com ---
I overlooked that gcov_master was also used in gcov_dump_int.
The bug is exactly as Honza described. I can reproduce with a simple example.
Nathan: did you use dlopen? It seems using dlopen will chang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64908
Bug ID: 64908
Summary: [5 Regression] pch broken
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: pch
Assignee: u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22141
hariharan.gcc at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hariharan.gcc at gmail do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64908
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
This is the actual crash:
==15192== Invalid read of size 1
==15192==at 0xCBB825: ggc_get_size(void const*) (in
/usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/5.0.0/cc1plus)
==15192==by 0xBE7A71: gt_pch_n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64867
--- Comment #13 from Tom Tromey ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
> That's the wrong thing to assert:
Aha, thank you very much. I obviously did not realize the difference :)
Unfortunately I think even if I made this change I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64876
boger at us dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58400
--- Comment #13 from Chen Gang ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #12)
> Please leave the bug open until a fix is committed to the trunk.
OK, thanks.
Could any members help to commit the related patch to the trunk? I guess, I am
not t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58400
--- Comment #14 from joern.rennecke at embecosm dot com ---
On 2 February 2015 at 19:58, gang.chen.5i5j at gmail dot com
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58400
>
> --- Comment #13 from Chen Gang ---
> (In reply to Jeffrey A.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64123
--- Comment #24 from Nathan Sidwell ---
xur, can you provide your testcase? with a regular use of multiple DSOs, I
can't get a failure. (no dlopen used).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64876
--- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
It seems to me that with the current code that issue should be handled in
libffi. With the current code it's hard for me to see why checking for "GNU
Go" is correct.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64123
--- Comment #25 from xur at google dot com ---
attached the test case. replace CC in build_cmd with your compiler.
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:59 PM, nathan at acm dot org
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64123
>
> --- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64905
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
A patch is posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-02/msg00093.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64909
Bug ID: 64909
Summary: [4.8/5 regression] Missed vectorization
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: middle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64909
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|ebotcazou at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61548
--- Comment #16 from tbsaunde at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #15)
> I think it is best to modify the remove_unreachable_nodes loop to first
> remove aliases before removing their target...
how is this related? the ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64212
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Well, can someone overwrite dllimport symbol by different definition?
If not, it is a bug of decl_binds_to_current_def_p to return false here.
If it can be inteprposed, I think the function
symtab_node::noninte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64909
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64910
Bug ID: 64910
Summary: tree reassociation results in poor code
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64910
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Here's the hack that I was playing with which shows the better code sequence:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c
index 995..4515a4d 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c
+++ b/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58400
--- Comment #15 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
The patch needs to be reviewed. It's been a long time since I thought about
the _STRICT variants of the REG_OK_ macros and how all that's supposed to work.
I'll have to read up on their semantics before I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49951
--- Comment #21 from asmwarrior ---
I just test the sample code in comment 20 with GCC 4.9.2, and I see this
"jumpy" behaviour still exists, do we need to reopen this bug? Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64911
Bug ID: 64911
Summary: FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/strchr.c
compilation, -O0
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64911
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56590
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #24 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #19)
Confirmed that this patch eliminates the regressions for...
make -k check
RUNTESTFLAGS="conformance.exp=17_intro/headers/c++*/all_attributes.cc
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64901
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Feb 3 02:49:42 2015
New Revision: 220363
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220363&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/64901
* decl.c (duplicate_decls): Also duplicate DECL_FINAL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64836
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Tue Feb 3 03:33:21 2015
New Revision: 220364
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220364&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/64836
PR go/64838
compiler: Use int64_t for backend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64838
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Tue Feb 3 03:33:21 2015
New Revision: 220364
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220364&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/64836
PR go/64838
compiler: Use int64_t for backend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64836
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64838
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63256
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
sms-1.c fails with -m32 -mpowerpc64 in a similar way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64876
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64912
Bug ID: 64912
Summary: no debug info for struct that pass by reference
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64205
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
