https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78112
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Can you attach then preprocessed copy.ii, cc1plus command line and copy.s (with
additional -dA) from both r241136 and r241137 +
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg02062.html ?
The test is -std=c++11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78098
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #10)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> > > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> > > > Why would we be not ab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78122
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78124
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78127
Bug ID: 78127
Summary: [5/6/7 Regression] AArch64 internal compiler error: in
lra_eliminate, at lra-eliminations.c:1440
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78128
Bug ID: 78128
Summary: fortran/resolve.c:resolve_operator miscompiled at -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78025
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78128
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78128
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78128
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||71002
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78112
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Can you attach then preprocessed copy.ii, cc1plus command line and copy.s
> (with
> additional -dA) from both r241136 and r241137 +
> http://gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78129
Bug ID: 78129
Summary: -Werror=suggest-final-types leads to -ENOSPC.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70975
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth ---
Just FYI, in a recent Solaris 12 build sendfile was changed to accept a NULL
off
for Linux compatibility. However, the separate Solaris 10/11 (which isn't used
yet) doesn't have that change and probably wont.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78026
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70975
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Does following patch work:
--cut here--
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/src/filesystem/ops.cc
b/libstdc++-v3/src/filesystem/ops.cc
index 9abcee0..b709858 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/src/filesystem/ops.cc
+++ b/libstdc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77783
foreese at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77919
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78124
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78129
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78127
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78122
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78116
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78115
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70975
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
> Does following patch work:
>
> --cut here--
> diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/src/filesystem/ops.cc
> b/libstdc++-v3/src/filesystem/ops.cc
> index 9abce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77919
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77930
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77730
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78115
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
For the first part, when we transform (X+C1)+C2 to X+(C1+C2), we check that
C1+C2 doesn't overflow. But if C1+C2 would give INT_MIN, we still have the
possibility to generate X-INT_MIN without going to an unsig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77917
--- Comment #11 from PeteVine ---
Well, I finally managed to complete an LTO bootstrap on ARM (even leaving the
full complement of C(XX)FLAGS in place, bar -flto) but it seems using ld.bfd is
a must.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77917
PeteVine changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77730
--- Comment #8 from PeteVine ---
I thought I was clear it was just a heads-up. All relevant data is already
inside and anyone willing to look closer should just run the benchmark on any
machine/platform like this, e.g.:
$ phoronix-test-suite ben
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78130
Bug ID: 78130
Summary: Strict overflow warning appears to be invalid
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78130
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77919
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I guess the first question is if it is valid for expand_expr that requests
> some mode to return a rtx with some completely different mode. If not, then
> the bug is somewhere in normal_inner_ref: code:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78130
--- Comment #2 from Rian Quinn ---
The output:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/usr/bin/c++
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-pkgversion='Ubuntu
5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.2' --with-bugurl=file:///usr/share/doc/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78130
--- Comment #3 from Rian Quinn ---
Created attachment 39908
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39908&action=edit
ii and s file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77308
--- Comment #21 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to wilco from comment #20)
> > Wilco, where have you seen the additional registers used with my
> > previous patch, maybe we can try to fix that somehow?
>
> What happens is that the move of zero
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78130
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77308
--- Comment #22 from wilco at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #21)
> (In reply to wilco from comment #20)
> > > Wilco, where have you seen the additional registers used with my
> > > previous patch, maybe we can try to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78098
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #13)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #10)
> > > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> > > > (In reply to Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78132
Bug ID: 78132
Summary: GCC produces invalid instruction (kmovd and kmovq) for
KNL.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78130
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
markus@x4 tmp % cat string_span_tests.ii
class A {
public:
using index_type = int;
index_type m_fn1() { return size_; }
index_type size_;
};
struct B {
using element_type = int;
using index_ty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78130
--- Comment #6 from Rian Quinn ---
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would appear that this is indeed an bug with
GCC (based on current activity). If that is the case, what would be your
recommendations on how to resolve this issue in the GSL. At t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78130
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
Reduced a bit more:
struct B {
B();
void m_fn2(int p1) {
if (p1 <= storage_)
throw;
}
int storage_;
};
void f() {
B span_;
int b = span_.storage_;
span_.m_fn2(b - 1);
}
The warning see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78132
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78132
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Related to bug 77476.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78130
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78098
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
>
> Not with interrupt handler which needs different epilogue and prologue.
I see, however I'm not sure it's known information when IPA ICF is running.
Or am I wrong?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77919
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase:
struct A { A (double) {} _Complex double i; };
typedef int __attribute__ ((vector_size (16))) B;
typedef struct { B b; } C;
struct D { D (const B &x) : b (x) {} B b; };
static inline B foo (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54679
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I should have looked at this sooner. We actually do diagnose this, but our
warning/error logic is not right.
pr54679.f90:8:56:
PRINT "(A,1X,I2,1X,A,1X,I2,1X,A,2(1X,I0,1X),A,2(1X,L0,1X))"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78116
--- Comment #2 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
WE also found out performance drop on another important benchmark with the same
symptoms after r241170, namely loop marked with .L18 has +12 more fills from
stack. The test-case will be attached.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78116
--- Comment #3 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 39910
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39910&action=edit
another test-case
Must be compiled with "-Ofast -fopenmp -funroll-loops -march=knl"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78133
Bug ID: 78133
Summary: Commit r241489 adds printf specifiers not supported by
newlib.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78133
--- Comment #1 from Tamar Christina ---
These are coming from gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78134
Bug ID: 78134
Summary: set::set lower_bound() for transparent comparator
returns const_iterator
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78132
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
The failing instruction is pre-existing movdi_internal.
movzwl c(%rip), %eax # 5 zero_extendhidi2/1 [length = 8]
kmovw e(%rip), %k1# 9 *movhi_internal/6 [length = 9]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78098
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #15)
> >
> > Not with interrupt handler which needs different epilogue and prologue.
>
> I see, however I'm not sure it's known information when IPA ICF is running.
> Or am
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77735
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tamar.christina at arm dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78135
Bug ID: 78135
Summary: In an unsigned long (64 bit) 1<<31 gives rubbish
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78135
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
wk = 0x1 << j;
That is still int << j
Try changing it to be the following:
wk = 0x1ull << j;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78135
John Hunter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jmdh01 at btinternet dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78135
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78136
Bug ID: 78136
Summary: gcc.dg/cpp/trad/include.c fails with newer glibc
versions
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78132
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This is actually a bug in the REE pass, HARD_REGNO_MODE_OK is false for the
mask registers and DImode unless -mavx512bw, that pass should honor it.
I'll fix it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77308
--- Comment #23 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to wilco from comment #22)
>
> What I meant is that your patch still makes a large difference on the
> original test case despite making no difference in simple cases like the
> above.
For sure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78132
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78116
--- Comment #4 from Pat Haugen ---
(In reply to Yuri Rumyantsev from comment #2)
> WE also found out performance drop on another important benchmark with the
> same symptoms after r241170, namely loop marked with .L18 has +12 more fills
> from st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78116
--- Comment #5 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Yes, some virtual register are allocated on stack and we got more loads from
stack to get their values.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77308
--- Comment #24 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #23)
> @@ -5020,7 +5020,7 @@
> (define_insn_and_split "one_cmpldi2"
>[(set (match_operand:DI 0 "s_register_operand" "=w,&r,&r,?w")
> (not:DI (match_o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77308
--- Comment #25 from wilco at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #24)
> (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #23)
> > @@ -5020,7 +5020,7 @@
> > (define_insn_and_split "one_cmpldi2"
> >[(set (match_operand:DI 0 "s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78135
--- Comment #4 from John Hunter ---
The annotation of Constants with `ul' is a fudge. In the specimen program,
a constant (1) is assigned to an unsigned long variable (wk) which forces it to
be `ul'. The optimiser, in trying to eliminate a local
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78135
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to John Hunter from comment #4)
> The annotation of Constants with `ul' is a fudge.
Not in this case as:
((1 << 24) << 7))
is an int.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78135
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> wk = 0x1 << j;
>
> That is still int << j
That is not true, that is actually either long int << j or long long int << j
on most targets (e.g. LP64 the f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77308
--- Comment #26 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to wilco from comment #25)
>
> Alternatives can be disabled, there are flags, eg:
>
> (set_attr "arch" "neon_for_64bits,*,*,avoid_neon_for_64bits")
>
Ok I see, thanks.
Still lots of insns cou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78135
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77735
--- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
Thanks for the heads up! Yes, the tests will need to be disabled but I'll also
need to fix the gimple-ssa-sprintf pass to avoid assuming that %a is supported
when it isn't. Unless one already exists that mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78133
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78133
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78025
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Oct 27 18:51:28 2016
New Revision: 241628
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241628&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/78025
* omp-simd-clone.c (simd_clone_adjust)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70975
--- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Oct 27 18:55:55 2016
New Revision: 241629
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241629&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR70975 Pass valid offset argument to sendfile
PR libstdc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70975
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78112
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pmderodat at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78112
--- Comment #6 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 39914
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39914&action=edit
preprocessed input and assembler output before and after the culprit patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61414
Matt Godbolt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matt at godbolt dot org
--- Comment #8 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78116
--- Comment #6 from Pat Haugen ---
Can you post your configure command (or gcc -v output).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54679
--- Comment #5 from Nick Maclaren ---
That's the right message. Warning or error, it doesn't matter.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78026
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Oct 27 19:55:12 2016
New Revision: 241630
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241630&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/78026
* parse.c (decode_statement): Don't creat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78112
Pierre-Marie de Rodat changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||derodat at adacore dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78137
Bug ID: 78137
Summary: [C++1z] braced initializer in defaulted function
argument causes ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78026
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] ICE in |[5/6 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78137
Eric Niebler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78003
Eric Niebler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eric.niebler at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77860
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54535
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53562
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78138
Bug ID: 78138
Summary: missing warnings on buffer overflow with non-constant
source length
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78138
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57082
lucdanton at free dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lucdanton at free dot fr
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78029
Sebastian Huber changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sebastian.huber@embedded-br
99 matches
Mail list logo
