https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65457
Bug ID: 65457
Summary: ICE in libgfortran/ieee/ieee_arithmetic.F90
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64820
--- Comment #4 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Fixed by r22145.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64820
Maxim Ostapenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65458
Bug ID: 65458
Summary: parloops transforms omp-generated functions
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: tree-opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.0 |---
Summary|[5 Regressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65457
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger ---
these are my configure flags:
../gcc-5-20150315/configure --prefix=/home/ed/gnu/arm-linux-gnueabihf
--enable-languages=all,ada,go,obj-c++ --with-arch=armv7-a --with-tune=cortex-a9
--with-fpu=vfpv3-d16 --wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65457
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
When I look at tree.h:3346, I do not understand why the
operand check failed. From the message it appears that
__i==2 and TREE_OPERAND_LENGTH (__u)==4:
inline tree *
tree_operand_check (tree __t, int __i,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65380
--- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 35050
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35050&action=edit
one.o.000i.cgraph: -fdump-ipa-cgraph for the LTO step for the unpatched GCC
(r221482)
(In reply to Jan Hubicka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65459
Bug ID: 65459
Summary: munaligned-access still produce split access codes
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65458
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35051
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35051&action=edit
tentative patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65460
Bug ID: 65460
Summary: parloops transforms offloaded functions
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65460
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35052
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35052&action=edit
tentative patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65450
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35047|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65451
--- Comment #4 from John Marino ---
Created attachment 35054
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35054&action=edit
gzipped archive of matreshka source files
I created a tarball of the source files rather than concatenate. I tho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #9)
> (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #7)
> > OK, but why does this make such a difference in the final result. Ie, what
> > happens as we get into RTL.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
And as I analyzed in comment #3 we chose the now different coalescing because
it is more profitable (to the cost analysis we perform in out-of-SSA
coalescing).
So the fix, if any, is there (or in the code m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65451
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-aux-dragonfly4.1 |
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
To add to all this - IMHO copyrename should go - it's purpose was to have more
SSA names with user-decls and thus debug info for them. This should now
be dealt with debug insns (in a way better and correct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65243
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65408
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Note that code quality is an issue here as well. Cases to consider are
struct test obj;
void foo()
{
func (obj);
}
and
void foo()
{
struct test obj;
func (obj);
}
and
void foo (struct test obj)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #18 from Alexandre Oliva ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #14)
> So, forgive me, but is -DOPT supposed to be the good or the bad code?
It's the good one. As noted in comment 12, I had that backwards in comment 6.
(In re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
>
> --- Comment #18 from Alexandre Oliva ---
> (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #20 from Alexandre Oliva ---
(In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #18)
> No, we don't even *consider* the coalescing performed in the -DOPT case,
> because, as noted in comment 13, the SSA names ended up with different base
> nam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65340
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Mar 18 10:31:24 2015
New Revision: 221483
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221483&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-18 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/65340
* call.c (bui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65340
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65450
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35053|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65078
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 18 10:58:32 2015
New Revision: 221485
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221485&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65078
* config/i386/sse.md (movsi/movdi -> vec_extract_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65408
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra ---
Code quality for both powerpc64le and x86_64 looks passable for the testcase
here and other structs with at least one int field (ie. when the struct size is
a multiple of 4, and alignment is 4). You get DImode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65078
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65460
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65458
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Note the vectorizer has a slight preference to align stores.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65450
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
I think DR_PTR_INFO is indeed for the base object and was supposed to preserve
points-to-info only. Patch looks ok.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65443
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65442
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65440
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65432
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mliska at suse dot cz
Target Mileston
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65426
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65425
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65461
Bug ID: 65461
Summary: -Warray-bounds warnings in the linux kernel
(free_area_init_nodes)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65424
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65425
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 35056
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35056&action=edit
incomplete patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65421
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65449
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Hi Richard,
the invalid/different code for -O2 -fstrict-volatile-bitfields will be
fixed with my proposed patch, because the misalignedness of mm should
be visible at -O2 and prevent the strict_volatile bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65461
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Correct link for the PR links to a different bugzilla:
https://dmz-portal.mips.com/bugz/show_bug.cgi?id=1006
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Can you please provide a testcase? It looks like what keeps
void bar (int *);
void baz (void);
void foo (void)
{
int a[10];
bar (a);
baz ();
}
from using a sibcall doesn't work for you. Probably th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28586
Bug 28586 depends on bug 33704, which changed state.
Bug 33704 Summary: AIX runs c++ constructors in incorrect order
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33704
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33704
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
Bug 54791 depends on bug 33704, which changed state.
Bug 33704 Summary: AIX runs c++ constructors in incorrect order
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33704
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28586
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #6 from David Edels
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #34 from David Edel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64491
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64600
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64715
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64491
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So perhaps we just can't warn for your testcase, if we can't detect it
reliably.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64860
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
The "culprit" basically refactors things and in the process screws
code-generation with sreals?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60794
John Marino changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65432
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 35057
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35057&action=edit
Suggested patch
I guess the problem is caused by missing xstdup_for_dump wrappers.
Can you please Markus test fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64491
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Stubbs ---
Yeah, I've not managed to come up with a better solution, so I think I'll just
revert the patch, for now. :-(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65207
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59967
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65432
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> Created attachment 35057 [details]
> Suggested patch
>
> I guess the problem is caused by missing xstdup_for_dump wrappers.
> Can you please Markus test for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65238
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65380
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #11)
> Created attachment 35050 [details]
> one.o.000i.cgraph: -fdump-ipa-cgraph for the LTO step for the unpatched GCC
> (r221482)
>
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka from c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65222
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65243
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> I can reproduce the SEGV with the same stack trace with recent trunk.
>
> Going back in time as far back as commit 8b2ddcd 7 months ago I get:
>
> lto1: interna
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65432
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #4)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> > Created attachment 35057 [details]
> > Suggested patch
> >
> > I guess the problem is caused by missing xstdu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65243
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|2015-03-02 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65337
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65398
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65450
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
--- Comment #2 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35058
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35058&action=edit
__builtin_GOACC_data_end
Sorry, I thought I included this test case. Anyway, the !$acc data regions i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65222
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 18 13:47:47 2015
New Revision: 221489
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221489&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65222
* doc/invoke.texi: Add knl as x86 -march=/-mtune=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65450
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 18 13:54:12 2015
New Revision: 221490
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221490&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/65450
* tree-vect-data-refs.c (vect_duplicat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65222
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65450
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0, 5.0
Summary|[4.9/5 Reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65451
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65432
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Mar 18 14:16:59 2015
New Revision: 221491
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221491&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR ipa/65432
PR ipa/65432
* cgraph.c (cgraph_node::get_create
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65432
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64032
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Stubbs ---
Author: ams
Date: Wed Mar 18 14:27:13 2015
New Revision: 221492
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221492&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR64491
2015-03-18 Andrew Stubbs
PR middle-end/64491
Revert
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64491
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Stubbs ---
Author: ams
Date: Wed Mar 18 14:27:13 2015
New Revision: 221492
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221492&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR64491
2015-03-18 Andrew Stubbs
PR middle-end/64491
Rever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64491
Andrew Stubbs changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65427
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60851
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
I have a patch in testing:
--cut here--
Index: recog.c
===
--- recog.c (revision 221482)
+++ recog.c (working copy)
@@ -2775,6 +2775,10 @
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65380
--- Comment #13 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #12)
> What's your target where you have the PR? I'm also unable to reproduce the
> issue. Even with BFD.
Build/host/target is a CentOS 6.6 x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu sy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65424
--- Comment #2 from Robert Clausecker ---
I'm looking forwards to a fix! This optimization is important for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13631
--- Comment #35 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Mar 18 16:17:47 2015
New Revision: 221494
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221494&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/13631
* config/locale/gnu/messages_members.cc (get_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #4 from Jens Gustedt ---
This is a surprising policy change that occurs a random point in time, namely
where _Atomic is introduced to the C language and in addition does that in a
very unituitive way. Why drop _Atomic, why keep the ot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65459
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm*-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63491
--- Comment #12 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #11)
> Ok, I found the difference. The problem on the external gcc112 system (ie,
> the big-endian system) is that the system binutils doesn't support POWER8,
> so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65427
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65427
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|FIXE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
stdatomic.h uses both __auto_type and __typeof__. In the cases where
__typeof__ is used, (a) const and _Atomic (and maybe volatile) must be
removed and (b) __auto_type would not be correct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65400
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 35059
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35059&action=edit
gcc5-pr65400.patch
Untested fix for the first issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
(_Generic does make sure to treat its controlling expression as an rvalue,
removing qualifiers including _Atomic as well as ensuring GCC's internal
representation of _Noreturn as a qualifie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65046
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Mar 18 18:08:29 2015
New Revision: 221497
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221497&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65046
* config/locale/gnu/messages_members.cc (Catalog_inf
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
