https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64022
--- Comment #5 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Tue Aug 4 07:27:19 2015
New Revision: 226548
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226548&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/64022
* simplify.c (gfc_simplify
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66784
--- Comment #2 from Guido Haztsis ---
Well I believe that the is_builtin_fn cometh from here:
+2488 gcc/lto-streamer-out.c
if (!TREE_PUBLIC (t)
|| is_builtin_fn (t)
|| DECL_ABSTRACT_P (t)
|| (TREE_CODE (t) == VAR_DECL &&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67111
Bug ID: 67111
Summary: ld -plugin segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67104
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67015
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67015
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
OK, let's backport to 4.9 too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67085
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Calcutt from comment #3)
> Are there technical reasons this is not desirable or possible beyond what
> you have already stated? Is the behavior of the priority queue here also
> outside
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66079
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #38 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015, alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
>
> --- Comment #37 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Hmmm, no it's not the hashi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66079
--- Comment #11 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Mikael,
It looks like my finger slipped on the mouse wheel - I'll put it right tonight.
Thanks
Paul
On 4 August 2015 at 11:27, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> https://gcc.gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66604
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66602
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66311
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67112
Bug ID: 67112
Summary: [MinGW64] build failure due to name conflict with
system headers
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67113
Bug ID: 67113
Summary: unintelligent error message "only declarations of
constructors can be 'explicit'" in cpp file's
constructor define.
Product: gcc
Version: 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67114
Bug ID: 67114
Summary: [MinGW64] build failure with POSIX threads enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67114
--- Comment #1 from Cezary Śliwa ---
Created attachment 36120
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36120&action=edit
complementary patch to the w32-pthreads library
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66427
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67115
Bug ID: 67115
Summary: [MinGW64] name conflict with system headers
(identifier "CONST")
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66427
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Aug 4 11:05:02 2015
New Revision: 226568
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226568&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-08-04 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/66427
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66427
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|morwenn29 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66311
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 36121
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36121&action=edit
Beginning of a patch
The existing code mixes gmp allocation with wide_int allocation.
With the patch, an extra s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67110
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|hjl at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail dot
com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67113
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Jonatha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67115
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Why do mingw system headers use non-reserved names?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67112
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67113
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67114
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67115
--- Comment #2 from Cezary Śliwa ---
It may be because they follow the OS specific standards, so to say.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67110
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Aug 4 11:54:20 2015
New Revision: 226570
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226570&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Compile IAMCU tests with -fno-pie -no-pie
Since IAMCU tests clear
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67110
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67109
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67109
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r224077.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67114
--- Comment #3 from Cezary Śliwa ---
Yes, I understand. The purpose of the patch is to point the problem. In
particular I don't know why operator< is needed and what are the required
semantics (i.e. comparing pointers vs. comparing thread sequenc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67108
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67108
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
The dumping ICE started with r217663.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67114
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The C++ standard requires thread::id objects to be comparable with operator<
and for it to impose a total order.
The current libstdc++ code assumes that a total order can be obtained simply by
comparing th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67107
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67107
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64351
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67109
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67056
Vegard Sjonfjell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||veg...@yahoo-inc.com
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67107
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67106
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67056
--- Comment #6 from Vegard Sjonfjell ---
Created attachment 36123
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36123&action=edit
Preprocessed file
Also adding the preprocessed file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67114
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #36119|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67114
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #36124|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66092
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66841
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66834
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill ---
*** Bug 66841 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66849
--- Comment #5 from simon at pushface dot org ---
(In reply to Jim Wilson from comment #4)
> If you want a proper thumb2 hard multilib, then in the file
> gcc/config/arm/t-arm-elf see the line
> MULTILIB_EXCEPTIONS+= *mthumb/*mfloat-abi=hard*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66834
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67116
Bug ID: 67116
Summary: incorrect detection of thread model when
cross-compiling the tool chain
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510
--- Comment #5 from Iain Buclaw ---
I can still reproduce the wrong-line diagnostic using gcc (GCC) 6.0.0 20150720
(experimental).
However GDB has been building just fine for a while now. But I don't know if
that is due to a change on GCC or GD
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66921
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66564
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67056
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 36126
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36126&action=edit
Somewhat reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67056
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67114
--- Comment #7 from Cezary Śliwa ---
1. After applying the patch to GCC 5.2.0, the build fails (I do not see
PTW32_VERSION defined):
Making all in c++11
make[5]: Entering directory
`/home/czarek/src/nowe/build-pthreads/objdir-gcc/x86_64-w64-min
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66392
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66392
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Aug 4 14:54:07 2015
New Revision: 226579
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226579&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-08-04 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/66392
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66392
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|paolo.carlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66849
--- Comment #6 from jim.wilson at linaro dot org ---
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 6:39 AM, simon at pushface dot org
wrote:
>> The t-aprofile that Ramana mentioned does support thumb/hard multilibs, but
>> makes this work by requiring armv7 or higher.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66676
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66696
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64022
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
I am seeing:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/large_1.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/large_1.f90 -O1 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/large_1.f90 -O2 (test for excess errors)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66586
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
Happens in c++/66439 too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64022
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67117
Bug ID: 67117
Summary: [c++-concepts] Constraints ignored on variable
template
Product: gcc
Version: c++-concepts
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66962
--- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Andrew Sutton from comment #14)
> Created attachment 36054 [details]
>
> There is still complexity induced by the use of disjunctions. This manages
> it a little better. It could be further imp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67118
Bug ID: 67118
Summary: gcc and gfortran started crashing recently
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66962
--- Comment #18 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Aug 4 15:38:29 2015
New Revision: 226583
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226583&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66962
* logic.cc (term_list::insert): Avoid adding
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66962
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67056
--- Comment #9 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Started with r215902.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67114
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Cezary Śliwa from comment #7)
> 1. After applying the patch to GCC 5.2.0, the build fails (I do not see
> PTW32_VERSION defined):
Doh, of course not, because gthr.h isn't included until after
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67116
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64022
--- Comment #8 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6)
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/large_1.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
This is fixed by the following patch, waiting for approval:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67116
--- Comment #2 from Cezary Śliwa ---
This is a quite special case, target and host architecture are the same, only
the thread models are different. I think libstdc++ uses the preinstalled
compiler rather that the one just built. Anyway, the prei
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66197
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
Indeed, this is also fixed in mainline. I'm adding a testcase and closing the
bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66731
--- Comment #7 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: nsz
Date: Tue Aug 4 16:22:32 2015
New Revision: 226586
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226586&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR target/66731 Fix fnmul insn with -frounding-math (rtx c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66731
--- Comment #8 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: nsz
Date: Tue Aug 4 16:43:46 2015
New Revision: 226587
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226587&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc:
Backport from mainline:
2015-08-04 Szabolcs N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #5)
> I can still reproduce the wrong-line diagnostic using gcc (GCC) 6.0.0
> 20150720 (experimental).
>
> However GDB has been building just fine for a while now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67116
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Cezary Śliwa from comment #2)
> This is a quite special case, target and host architecture are the same,
> only the thread models are different. I think libstdc++ uses the
> preinstalled compil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66731
--- Comment #9 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: nsz
Date: Tue Aug 4 16:49:54 2015
New Revision: 226588
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226588&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix broken backport patch.
gcc:
Backport from mainline:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66311
--- Comment #9 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've audited the patch for the memory management nightmares; we are safe with
it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66311
--- Comment #10 from Kenneth Zadeck ---
I have audited the patch for the non memory management issues and it is
approved.
thanks for doing this.
kenny
On 08/04/2015 07:38 AM, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66311
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66197
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Aug 4 17:22:05 2015
New Revision: 226591
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226591&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-08-04 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/66197
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66197
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66731
--- Comment #10 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: nsz
Date: Tue Aug 4 17:42:05 2015
New Revision: 226592
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226592&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc:
Backport from mainline:
2015-07-06 Szabolcs N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67063
İsmail Dönmez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ismail at donmez dot ws
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66311
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66311
--- Comment #13 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #12)
> Here's an alternative patch. I haven't yet tested it beyond
> an expanded version of the testcase, but I think it's easier
> to follow if we se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66311
--- Comment #14 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #12)
> Created attachment 36128 [details]
> Alternative patch
>
> Here's an alternative patch. I haven't yet tested it beyond
> an expanded version of the testc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66311
--- Comment #15 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Created attachment 36129
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36129&action=edit
Fortran testcase
Attached is a Fortran testcase, ready for inclusion in
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg
Pl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66311
--- Comment #16 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #14)
> (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #12)
> > Created attachment 36128 [details]
> > Alternative patch
> >
> > Here's an alternative pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66082
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Morin ---
Paul, is there something to be done before closing?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67116
--- Comment #4 from Cezary Śliwa ---
OK, the newly built compiler cannot be used because we are cross-compiling. The
only thing that can be done is to move the trees to the target system and
finish building target libraries there. A warning or er
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67119
Bug ID: 67119
Summary: URL linking to previous patches are not available
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65831
Matthew Dennis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mdennis at merfer dot net
--- Comment #
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
