https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45397
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.5 |7.0
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79547
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79546
Richard W.M. Jones changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79551
Bug ID: 79551
Summary: Better carouse position for not declared errors
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79551
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79428
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 16 08:57:30 2017
New Revision: 245502
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245502&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-02-09 Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79549
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79549
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
*** Bug 79550 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79550
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79549
--- Comment #3 from TC ---
-std=c++1z, of course.
http://melpon.org/wandbox/permlink/kxNlvdtfvjCW5fNN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79549
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564
--- Comment #32 from Richard Biener ---
int ii;
for (ii=j+1; ii= VF * sizeof (double). It certainly looks more complicated
than that:
_1100 = (unsigned int) SOR_size_19;
_1096 = (unsigned int) j_910;
_1087 = _1100 -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60936
--- Comment #31 from Markus Eisenmann ---
Hi!
There's a minor failure in the (patched) function __concat_size_t (within
snprintf_lite.cc):
size_t __len = __out - __cs;
Calculates the remaining/unsused characters in the buffer __cs!
Therefore t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79536
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564
--- Comment #33 from Richard Biener ---
For example with
Index: tree-vect-loop-manip.c
===
--- tree-vect-loop-manip.c (revision 245501)
+++ tree-vect-loop-manip.c (working
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564
--- Comment #34 from Richard Biener ---
But as A + 8 >= B || A >= B + 8 is the same as ABS (A - B) >= 8 we might do
better re-writing the overlap test in terms of this (of course it all really
depends on whether that and the offset stripping hand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79536
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
The problem here is that we have a NOP_EXPR: (int) -x. negate_expr_p returns
true for that, which means that fold_negate_expr cannot return NULL_TREE. But
that's what happens, and that leads to a crash in f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79536
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
So perhaps this:
--- a/gcc/fold-const.c
+++ b/gcc/fold-const.c
@@ -581,8 +581,8 @@ fold_negate_expr (location_t loc, tree t)
case COMPLEX_EXPR:
if (negate_expr_p (t))
return fold_build2_loc (l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79347
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79347
--- Comment #11 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 40757
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40757&action=edit
sparc-sun-solaris2.12 pr79347.c.158t.vect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79529
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79347
--- Comment #12 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #10)
> The new testcase FAILs on sparc-sun-solaris2.12, both 32 and 64-bit:
>
> +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr79347.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump-times
> v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79533
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79534
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79535
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79536
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
> So perhaps this:
> --- a/gcc/fold-const.c
> +++ b/gcc/fold-const.c
> @@ -581,8 +581,8 @@ fold_negate_expr (location_t loc, tree t)
> case COMPLEX_EXPR:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79536
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79540
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79537
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60936
--- Comment #32 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Good catch, thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79542
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
Summary|[7.0 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79536
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Yes, but see my Comment 3 regarding STRIP_SIGN_NOPS.
Also the typedef is necessary, otherwise there are no NOP_EXPRs (huh).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77536
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=79547
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79548
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79549
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79380
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |paolo.carlini at oracle
dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79547
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> + /* Pure functions that return something not based on any object. */
> + case BUILT_IN_STRLEN:
> + /* We don't need to do anything here. No co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79547
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Actually the last 4 not, they return addresses into it.
But also strspn and strcspn?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79512
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 16 12:02:24 2017
New Revision: 245504
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245504&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79512
c/
* c-parser.c (c_parser_omp_target): For -f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60936
--- Comment #33 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Feb 16 12:06:28 2017
New Revision: 245505
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245505&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/60936 fix length calculation
PR libstdc++/60936
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79536
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79536
>
> --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
> Yes, but see my Comment 3 regarding STRIP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79547
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79547
>
> --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Actually the last 4 not, they return address
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79548
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79552
Bug ID: 79552
Summary: [Regression GCC 6+] Wrong code generation due to
-fschedule-insns, with __restrict__ and inline asm
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79552
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.4
Summary|[Regression GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79552
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Katsunori Kumatani from comment #0)
> Things to note:
>
> This happens on GCC 6 and up to 7 only, GCC 5.4 generates correct output.
> This happens once you turn on the -fschedule-insns option. So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79553
Bug ID: 79553
Summary: Infinite gfortran loop on invalid code with procedures
parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77536
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to amker from comment #4)
> Looks like generic loop unrolling code used by predcom spends quite a lot
> maintaining profiling counter, I will check if that's correct and we shall
> do the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79549
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Summ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79542
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79540
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79554
Bug ID: 79554
Summary: Zero length format string passed to fprintf under if
statement causes error message
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79555
Bug ID: 79555
Summary: Warning 'base class should be explicitly initialized
in the copy constructor' issued in wrong case
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79552
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79537
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79519
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79555
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79552
--- Comment #3 from Katsunori Kumatani ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1)
> (In reply to Katsunori Kumatani from comment #0)
>
> > Things to note:
> >
> > This happens on GCC 6 and up to 7 only, GCC 5.4 generates correct output.
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79556
Bug ID: 79556
Summary: [C++1z] ICE: in unify_one_argument, at cp/pt.c:18928
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79552
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Ah...
FOR_EACH_IMM_USE_STMT (use_stmt, ui, ptr)
{
/* ??? Calls and asms. */
if (!gimple_assign_single_p (use_stmt))
continue;
and at PTA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79554
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79556
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79556
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79541
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Thank you, Bernd. I've reproduced the bug and started to work on it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79552
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79552
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So your patch is effectively revesal of PR48885. But then we need some other
fix for it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78870
--- Comment #8 from Jan Niklas Hasse ---
I'm not interested in doing all this work again from scratch, especially since
working with the Windows API is a pain.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25790
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79552
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Katsunori Kumatani from comment #3)
> In my case, I explicitly told GCC what memory I was going to clobber (with
> the "=m"(*m) output operand). In fact, without telling it I was going to
> clobbe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79553
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=76731
--- Comment #16 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Feb 16 16:41:36 2017
New Revision: 245509
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245509&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/76731
* config/i386/avx512fintrin.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79050
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Feb 16 16:42:00 2017
New Revision: 245510
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245510&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79050 - ICE with undeduced auto and LTO
* decl.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78572
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Feb 16 16:42:06 2017
New Revision: 245511
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245511&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/78572 - ICE with self-modifying array initializer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78572
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7 Regression] internal |[6 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79050
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] ICE: |[5/6 Regression] ICE: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78870
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26367
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79553
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
With trunk (7.0, r244467) I get
pr79553.f90:7:30:
subroutine procname(a)
1
Error: Symbol 'procname' at (1) already has an explicit interface
pr79553.f90:8:25:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26388
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26388
--- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #10)
> The implementation challenges aside, I think the transformation suggested
> here could break some valid (if rare) C++ programs. std::vector is
> specified to use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79502
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Latest untested patch at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-02/msg01051.html
The earlier one caused bootstrap failures (this one includes testcases from
that as well as adjusted testcases from that, one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78838
--- Comment #2 from Jozef Lawrynowicz ---
Proposed patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-02/msg01054.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79557
Bug ID: 79557
Summary: ICE in ipa_modify_formal_parameters, at
ipa-prop.c:3979
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79558
Bug ID: 79558
Summary: ICE: Segfault in ubsan_type_descriptor, at ubsan.c:412
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45397
--- Comment #23 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
The model of shortening as much as possible for gimple, then widening to word
mode at the gimple/RTL boundary is probably too simplistic. We really need the
ability to widen when doing so allows for simpli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79559
Bug ID: 79559
Summary: ICE in ix86_print_operand, at config/i386/i386.c:18189
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79558
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79558
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79558
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
An ICE started with r211859, but it was a different ICE:
/home/brq/mpolacek/u.c: In function ‘fn1’:
/home/brq/mpolacek/u.c:7:11: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
x[i][j] = 5;
^
0x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79541
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
The bug is not severe. It occurs only when wrong asm occurs. This asm is
transformed into an USE and all its data is invalidated. If an insn is
inserted before the USE we take a garbage as the offset fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79560
Bug ID: 79560
Summary: libgccjit is broken on generic mips targets
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26388
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #10)
> The implementation challenges aside, I think the transformation suggested
> here could break some valid (if rare) C++ programs. std::vector is
> specified to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79555
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|6.3.1 |
Summary|[7 Regression] War
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78854
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to janus from comment #1)
> This essentially blocks PR 78661, for which it is very hard to write a
> proper test case as long as this bug is unfixed.
Janus, you could open a file with status scratc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79555
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes sorry, I messed up my test using GCC 6!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78127
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Feb 16 19:47:15 2017
New Revision: 245514
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245514&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-02-16 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/78127
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79502
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79502
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Feb 16 19:49:19 2017
New Revision: 245516
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245516&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79502 - lost nodiscard attribute
* pt.c (apply_lat
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
