https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68986
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7)
> This is caused by r210220.
A testsuite-only patch that only changes scan-assembler strings?
* gcc.target/i386/avx256-unaligned-load-2.c,
gcc.target/i386
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69196
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66655
--- Comment #18 from Roger Orr ---
What is the correct way forward with this issue?
Should we reopen this issue, or open a fresh one? (I'm not familiar enough with
the gcc use of bugzilla to know.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68986
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68986
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> I need additional -march=x86-64 to trigger this. With that it started with
> r228231.
Note that is with #c4 testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68986
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, missed the second testcase in #c4. That started with r210222.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69441
--- Comment #2 from John ---
Hi,
I goofed. This is not a bug.
Documentation for this instruction refers to first and second source
operands. Upon reflection, this refers to the Intel format and not the AT&T
format used within gcc where the opera
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69441
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68986
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And I bet the bug is exactly in the:
/* preferred_stack_boundary is never updated for call
9499 expanded from tls descriptor. Update it here. We don't
update it in
9500 ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69453
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> The n and m switch up happens when you are typing the command manually and
> very quickly without looking at the keyboard.
(Not when you type Colemak, lik
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68514
--- Comment #6 from Rainer Emrich ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> (In reply to Rainer Emrich from comment #4)
> > Revison 232071 broke bootstrap on x86_64-w64-mingw32, see bug 69440.
> > I can't test until trunk bootstraps again
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66655
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66655
--- Comment #20 from Nick Clifton ---
Author: nickc
Date: Mon Jan 25 08:57:02 2016
New Revision: 232785
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232785&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66655
* config/i386/cygming.h (MAKE_DECL_ONE_ONL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66655
--- Comment #21 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Roger,
> What is the correct way forward with this issue?
Sorry - my bad - I meant to get to this last Friday, but was snowed under.
We need to reopen the bug (done), remove the broken patch from the so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I need additional -march=x86-64 to trigger this.
I'd say either we have to pessimistically assume what the STV pass might be
doing already during expansion, or the STV pass would need to perform parts of
what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69376
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69376
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jan 25 09:05:47 2016
New Revision: 232786
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232786&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-25 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/69376
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69459
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69440
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Probably the same as PR 69266
And PR 66655...
I have just reverted the patch for PR 66655, which should also resolve this
issue for now. The actual bug report
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #12)
> AFAICT everything is fixed, but for
> comment 7 preferring an error instead of the warning. Since warnings can be
> turned into errors with -We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69393
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jan 25 09:31:47 2016
New Revision: 232787
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232787&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-25 Richard Biener
PR lto/69393
* dwarf2out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69393
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69461
Bug ID: 69461
Summary: ICE in lra_set_insn_recog_data, at lra.c:964
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69461
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 37453
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37453&action=edit
preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69461
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 37454
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37454&action=edit
profile data
Preprocessed source and .gcda data (fails only with profile-feedback, that
hopefully changes with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69461
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
With a cross from x86_64 I see
#1 0x00b91785 in lra_set_insn_recog_data (insn=0x766cb380)
at /space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk3/gcc/lra.c:962
962 gcc_assert (GET_CODE (PATTERN (i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
--- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Legacy code like the one in comment #11 should be allowed with -std=legacy only
(if at all).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69459
--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 37455
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37455&action=edit
original testcase
(In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #0)
...
>
> Tested revisions:
> trunk r232760 - FAIL
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69461
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69462
Bug ID: 69462
Summary: FLT_EVAL_METHOD and DECIMAL_DIG missing in float.h
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63304
--- Comment #47 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to ard.biesheuvel from comment #46)
> One issue that this causes, which I did not see mentioned anywhere in the
> thread, is that the use of adrp/add and adrp/ldr imposes a 4 KB section
> alignm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69462
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69442
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63304
--- Comment #48 from ard.biesheuvel at linaro dot org ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #47)
> (In reply to ard.biesheuvel from comment #46)
> > One issue that this causes, which I did not see mentioned anywhere in the
> > thread, is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66655
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rai...@emrich-ebersheim.de
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69440
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69444
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
--- Comment #15 from Dominiqu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69442
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The differences between various -mtune options come out during expand phase,
where the expansion for the mod operation is different.
For example, for -mtune=cortex-a9 the code doesn't abort and t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65779
Sebastian Huber changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sebastian.huber@embedded-br
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69462
--- Comment #2 from Dominik Vogt ---
Yep, that fixes the error for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69442
--- Comment #5 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #4)
> but for -mtune=cortex-a8 we have a completely different expansion of mod
> that seems to be misoptimised or something:
At -O1, is seems this expansion is used as well
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69442
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ok, I'll run a bisection
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68730
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reverting r232500 and r232413 results in the miscompilation again. So if those
changes are optimizations only we have a latent issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63304
--- Comment #49 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to ard.biesheuvel from comment #48)
> (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #47)
> > (In reply to ard.biesheuvel from comment #46)
> > > One issue that this causes, which I did not see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69266
--- Comment #8 from Irfan Adilovic ---
Yes, this is a duplicate of bug 66655
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68272
--- Comment #8 from Sergey Organov ---
That's exactly the problem: why builtins are (implicitly) declared "extern
inline" in C99 compilation mode? It seems logical to rather declare them
"inline" in this mode.
Overall, even though my own issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69298
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Created attachment 37448 [details]
> Self-contained variant
With n=3, the output of the attached test is
Initialising stuff_type 4
Finalising stuff_type 0
...
---
Initialising test_type
Initialisin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69463
Bug ID: 69463
Summary: wrong code with -O1 and vector arithmetics @ x86_64
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69455
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68283
--- Comment #16 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Mon Jan 25 11:36:11 2016
New Revision: 232790
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232790&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-25 Dominique d'Humieres
PR fortran/68283
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63960
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68283
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69464
Bug ID: 69464
Summary: [6 Regression]: bootstrap failure on CentOS 5.11:
error: ‘swap’ is not a member of ‘std’
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Yuri Rumyantsev from comment #0)
> In loop_invariant phase additional function inv_can_prop_to_addr_use which
> tried to determine if forward propagation for cheap address is possible
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69464
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
std::swap was defined in header until c++11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454
--- Comment #4 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> I need additional -march=x86-64 to trigger this.
> I'd say either we have to pessimistically assume what the STV pass might be
> doing already during expansion, o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68730
--- Comment #12 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> Reverting r232500 and r232413 results in the miscompilation again. So if
> those changes are optimizations only we have a latent issue.
Those changes fix perf
t: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: /export/users/kyukhin/gcc/git/gcc2/configure
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --disable-bootstrap --\
disable-libsanitizer
--with-as=/gnumnt/msticlxl57_users/kyukhin/binutils/release/bin/as
--with-fpmath=sse
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160125 (experi
rtran --disable-bootstrap --\
disable-libsanitizer
--with-as=/gnumnt/msticlxl57_users/kyukhin/binutils/release/bin/as
--with-fpmath=sse
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160125 (experimental) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-B' './build-x86_64-linux/gcc' '-S' '-O2' &
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69466
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69465
Kirill Yukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67205
simon at pushface dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||simon at pushface dot org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63304
--- Comment #50 from ard.biesheuvel at linaro dot org ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #49)
> (In reply to ard.biesheuvel from comment #48)
> > (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #47)
> > > (In reply to ard.biesheuvel fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69466
--- Comment #2 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Created attachment 37459
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37459&action=edit
Reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69421
--- Comment #12 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Mon Jan 25 12:48:54 2016
New Revision: 232792
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232792&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/69421
* tree-vect-stmts.c (vectorizab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69452
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69421
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69464
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It's in now, so better to include both to be portable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68654
Alexander Fomin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37037|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69466
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Summary|ICE: Invalid PHI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69466
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69464
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69447
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69464
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
The failre was introduced by r232736 [1]:
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg01643.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69450
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69464
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> That means we need #define USE_ALGORITHM before #include "system.h" in
> genmodes.c with a comment.
But std::swap is used in many places. IMO, a configure check wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69464
--- Comment #6 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> > That means we need #define USE_ALGORITHM before #include "system.h" in
> > genmodes.c with a comment.
>
> But std::s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69459
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69464
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69466
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69442
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kuganv at linaro dot org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69447
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65356
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69464
Ulrich Weigand changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69442
--- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #7)
> Started with:
> Author: kugan
> Date: Fri Jul 24 01:43:22 2015 +
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> 2015-07-23 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69452
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 37461
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37461&action=edit
patch for testing
I am testing the attached - using a RPO walk rather than a domwalk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65356
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |vries at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69464
--- Comment #8 from Michael Matz ---
Please try https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg01875.html
if possible.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65356
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69467
Bug ID: 69467
Summary: [6 Regression] Pattern X * C1 CMP 0 to X CMP 0 causes
performance drop on 32-bit x86.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69468
Bug ID: 69468
Summary: tail merge should ignore private edge flags
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69467
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 37462
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37462&action=edit
test-case to reproduce
Need to compile with -m32 at -O2 or -O3 -funroll-loops options.
In description the ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69380
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69380
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69453
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69380
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jan 25 14:42:39 2016
New Revision: 232795
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232795&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-25 Richard Biener
PR testsuite/69380
* g++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69447
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69467
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 223 matches
Mail list logo
