https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81016
Bug ID: 81016
Summary: 7.1.0 ICE: segfault with template struct
specialisation
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81016
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80932
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80928
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jun 8 07:32:52 2017
New Revision: 249004
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249004&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-06-08 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/80928
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77925
--- Comment #1 from tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tnfchris
Date: Thu Jun 8 07:38:42 2017
New Revision: 249005
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249005&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-06-08 Tamar Christina
PR middle-end/77925
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77926
--- Comment #1 from tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tnfchris
Date: Thu Jun 8 07:38:42 2017
New Revision: 249005
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249005&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-06-08 Tamar Christina
PR middle-end/77925
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66462
--- Comment #4 from tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tnfchris
Date: Thu Jun 8 07:38:42 2017
New Revision: 249005
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249005&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-06-08 Tamar Christina
PR middle-end/77925
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Started with r238959.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80911
--- Comment #18 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu Jun 8 07:51:07 2017
New Revision: 249006
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249006&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcov: Add block_info::block_info (PR gcov-profile/80911).
2017-06-08 Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80911
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81015
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77925
tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81015
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 41498
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41498&action=edit
Patch to remove invalid patterns
Patch in testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77926
tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81000
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
I never understand why people think that using a library to implement things
that look like language features is a good idea ... it just will make your
programs compile slower and possibly be optimized less.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66462
tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81017
Bug ID: 81017
Summary: Class with vector of unique_ptr and std::function does
not compile
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81001
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-debug
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81005
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Likewise for asm operands or aggregate call LHS.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81007
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81005
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Aggregate call lhs is handled already, gimple_store_p should be true for it.
Asm is indeed not handled, will look at that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81008
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81014
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81013
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81005
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Actually, not 100% sure about asm, we don't instrument those with asan either,
the problem is that there is no guarantee the asm reads or writes any of the
aggregate operands, so instrumenting those is proble
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81009
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81011
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81006
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81010
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81007
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #41495|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81010
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|amker at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81013
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81011
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81016
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |lto
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81007
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #28 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #27 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
[...]
> Besides, can you *pretty please* concentrate on the issue at hand in
> this PR, i.e. the failing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004
--- Comment #11 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
It goes from:
_ZNSt7__cxx1112basic_stringIcSt11char_traitsIcESaIcEED1Ev/37 (__comp_dtor )
@0x7f9a6e65eb80
Type: function definition a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81017
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81017
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
#include
#include
#include
struct Foo {
std::vector> vec;
std::function f;
};
int main()
{
std::vector vec;
vec.reserve(10);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80963
--- Comment #3 from Jan Engelhardt ---
The question is more like - can it be made to work even if (In reply to Andrew
Pinski from comment #1)
>
> That is Archive in the shared library and in the main executable are
> considered two different cla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81001
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
This might be related to const don't applies to the array itself but to the
type which the array is of in both c and c++ .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80963
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jan Engelhardt from comment #3)
> The question is more like - can it be made to work even if (In reply to
> Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> >
> > That is Archive in the shared library and in th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81018
Bug ID: 81018
Summary: [8 regression] gfortran.dg/graphite/pr14741.f90 FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81018
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80963
--- Comment #5 from Jan Engelhardt ---
>Where would those magic numbers come from? We don't have anything like that.
Maybe something similar to .build-id?, i.e. randomly-generated IDs (per .so)
that merely serve to distinguish two structs.
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80959
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
So there's explanation what happens:
1) w/o -fsanitize=address:
decide_copy_try_finally returns true and so that we copy BB that contains
finally statement:
foo ()
{
int n;
int D.1806;
bar (&n);
i.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81003
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 41500
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41500&action=edit
gcc8-pr81003.patch
We can't allow ->op to be something other than SSA_NAME or NULL (the latter
means GIMPLE_CON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80959
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Can be also simulated with ObjC:
$ cat /tmp/objc.m
volatile int i;
int
foo (void)
{
@try {
switch (i)
{
case 1:
switch (i)
{
default:
return 0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80932
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Can't reproduce. What arch, is that gcc or g++, ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81017
--- Comment #3 from Sagar Shah ---
thanks for taking a look at this.
Are we going to have noexcept added in the function move ctor.?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80932
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2017-06/msg00104.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2017-06/msg00105.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2017-06/msg00107.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80932
--- Comment #9 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
trunk (checking=release):
trippels@gcc67 gcc % gcc -O0 -fsanitize=undefined
./gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/ubsan/pr80932.c
trippels@gcc67 gcc % ./a.out
gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/ubsan/pr80932.c:10:88: r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73350
--- Comment #8 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Thu Jun 8 11:24:50 2017
New Revision: 249009
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249009&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR73350][PR80862] Improve subst for RC-capable insns.
PR target/73350,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
[...]
> For ODR violation bug we have a local patch in libsanitizer. Could you check
> whether you applied all local patches listed in libsaniti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61171
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2015-04-29
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60510
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2016-09-05
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80932
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Reproduced with -m32 on x86_64. Silly me. Will fix.
pr80932.c:10:88: runtime error: signed integer overflow: -413853711 * -6 cannot
be represented in type 'long int'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81011
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80932
--- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Jun 8 12:38:27 2017
New Revision: 249010
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249010&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitize/80932
* c-c++-common/ubsan/pr80932.c: Test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81006
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81017
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, and the move assignment operator.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65816
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-04-20 00:00:00 |2017-6-8
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80982
--- Comment #3 from wschmidt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
Hi Carl,
Just FYI, now that you've fixed the bug, and there are no plans to backport the
patch, you should go ahead and set the status of the bug to RESOLVED FIXED. I
know this differs f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80982
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Sorry, that was intended to be a PM...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81018
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81018
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65816
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81018
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80973
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81017
--- Comment #5 from Sagar Shah ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Yes, and the move assignment operator.
cool.. thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80973
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81017
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Jun 8 14:27:45 2017
New Revision: 249018
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249018&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/81017 add noexcept to std::function move operations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81019
Bug ID: 81019
Summary: [6/7/8 Regression] wrong code with -O -fno-tree-ccp
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81020
Bug ID: 81020
Summary: [6/7/8 Regression] wrong code with -O
-fno-tree-bit-ccp -fno-tree-coalesce-vars
-fno-tree-vrp
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81009
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes, the constness can be cast away without changing the effect of the rule.
Similar to the C++ rule we discussed in bug 80794 I feel that constness is an
underappreciated opportunity to generate better code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81021
Bug ID: 81021
Summary: stack-use-after-scope false positive error with
exceptions
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79990
Alexander Ivchenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65530
Bug 65530 depends on bug 79990, which changed state.
Bug 79990 Summary: [CHKP] ICE in expand_expr_addr_expr_1, at expr.c:7790
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79990
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80982
Carl Love changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80982
Carl Love changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81022
Bug ID: 81022
Summary: invalid address with pointer type casting
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81021
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81023
Bug ID: 81023
Summary: False positiv stack-use-after-scope (worked with GCC
6, fails with GCC 7)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004
--- Comment #12 from Azat ---
> Started with r238959.
If you revert this then it fixes some of problems (even though this is a
temporary solution), but there are more, and now this is *only without -flto*
(i.e. -Wall "-Werror -Wunknown-pragmas -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80973
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 41507
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41507&action=edit
gcc8-pr80973.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81024
Bug ID: 81024
Summary: ICE within convert_like_real
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If you undo that change then you can't link C++17 programs using std::string at
all, not just using LTO. That's why the change was done in the first place.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79988
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Ivchenko ---
Author: aivchenk
Date: Thu Jun 8 16:05:59 2017
New Revision: 249023
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249023&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-06-08 Alexander Ivchenko
PR middle-end/79988
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81024
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE within |ICE within
|convert_li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81021
--- Comment #2 from Matt Godbolt ---
Thanks Martin!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66462
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I thought this was fixed only for certain floating-point formats - and
even for those, not globally for all targets (not for binary128 on 32-bit
targets)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81017
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk, I'm planning to backport it to the branches too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52473
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 41508
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41508&action=edit
What an unrolled cshift could look like
This is what an unrolled version of cshift could look like,
for a simpl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78620
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64-linux
Status|WAITI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71151
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59874
--- Comment #16 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Jun 8 17:28:19 2017
New Revision: 249028
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249028&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/81015
Revert:
2016-12-14 Uros
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81015
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Jun 8 17:28:19 2017
New Revision: 249028
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249028&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/81015
Revert:
2016-12-14 Uros B
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
