https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81741
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81740
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61181
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=30438
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61181
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81734
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81747
Bug ID: 81747
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in operator[], at vec.h:749
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81695
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
This also requires the fix for PR81737.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81744
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=81722
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81698
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Aug 7 08:29:21 2017
New Revision: 250909
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250909&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/81698
* stmt.c (emit_case_dispatch_table): A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #63 from Daniel Santos ---
Created attachment 41943
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41943&action=edit
test patch for uncaught exception in generator
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #62)
> Created a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81748
Bug ID: 81748
Summary: extensible types non-conforming behaviour
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81737
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Aug 7 09:13:02 2017
New Revision: 250912
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250912&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/81737
* fold-const.c (fold_indirect_ref_1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81737
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81737
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78266
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
Reproduced it by mapping the outer loop to gang, and setting num_gangs to 640.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81749
Bug ID: 81749
Summary: std::align: runtime error: negation of 8 cannot be
represented in type 'size_t'
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81749
--- Comment #1 from Max Bruckner ---
Created attachment 41945
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41945&action=edit
Makefile to reproduce the error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81749
--- Comment #2 from Max Bruckner ---
This is on x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81749
--- Comment #3 from Max Bruckner ---
Created attachment 41946
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41946&action=edit
Suppression file as a workaround. Add to UBSAN_OPTIONS=supressions=...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81749
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78266
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
Minimal example:
...
int
main ()
{
#pragma acc parallel num_gangs(256)
{
#pragma acc loop gang
for (unsigned char j = 0; j < 5; j++)
;
}
return 0;
}
...
We generate an unconditional tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81749
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78266
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
F.i., we generate:
...
_41 = GOACC_DIM_SIZE (0);
_29 = (signed char) _41;
...
where _41 is 256.
When folding in forwprop2, we fold _29 to '0':
...
gimple_simplified to _29 = 0;
...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81744
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So with below code in prepare_finalizers_chain:
tree fini, niters = number_of_latch_executions (loop);
//...
niters = copy_node (niters);
niters = force_gimple_operand (niters, &stmts, true,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81744
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to amker from comment #4)
> So with below code in prepare_finalizers_chain:
> tree fini, niters = number_of_latch_executions (loop);
> //...
> niters = copy_node (niters);
> niters = force_g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81744
--- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> (In reply to amker from comment #4)
> > So with below code in prepare_finalizers_chain:
> > tree fini, niters = number_of_latch_executions (loop);
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81749
--- Comment #6 from Max Bruckner ---
Oh, you're right, unsigned overflow is defined of course. I guess I should
report a bug with UBSan then to get a suppression included for libstdc++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81713
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81749
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Strictly speaking, unsigned overflow doesn't even exist. "Integer overflow" is
only something that happens for signed integers. Operations on unsigned
integers have defined behaviour, they can't "overflow".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81743
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Aug 7 11:47:22 2017
New Revision: 250915
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250915&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Set priority to P_AES for Westmere
The difference between Ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81736
--- Comment #1 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Aug 7 11:49:10 2017
New Revision: 250916
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250916&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Don't use frame pointer without stack access
When there is n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80283
--- Comment #15 from Bernd Schmidt ---
For reference: patch and discussion here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-05/msg01058.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78972
--- Comment #11 from Bernd Schmidt ---
For reference: patch and discussion here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-05/msg01058.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81668
--- Comment #5 from sgunderson at bigfoot dot com ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #3)
> I don't see any bug, all relevant information is in the warnings.
My point is that all relevant information _isn't_ in the warnings.
In par
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81743
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81743
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81736
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81745
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #9)
> Changed back to INVALID (there's a bug in bugzilla, which changes INVALID to
> FIXED after a reload + a new comment).
Sounds like something your browser did
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80815
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81414
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81408
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81620
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81627
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81751
Bug ID: 81751
Summary: __basic_file::sync() may flush _all_ files
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46932
--- Comment #8 from Wilco ---
Author: wilco
Date: Mon Aug 7 13:56:02 2017
New Revision: 250918
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250918&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix unresolved in gcc.dg/pr46932.c
Build only if pre-increment is supported. Giv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81709
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81749
--- Comment #8 from Max Bruckner ---
I understand how unsigned integers work and that they are defined by the
standard to have modular arithmetic. In this case I just didn't add 1 and 1
together I guess.
Nevertheless I disagree that there is no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69389
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81752
Bug ID: 81752
Summary: num_gangs(65536) converted to 0
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81749
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Max Bruckner from comment #8)
> Nevertheless I disagree that there is no "overflow" or "underflow". It's a
> question of how you define the two words, in a way, but being defined
> doesn't make l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81749
--- Comment #10 from Max Bruckner ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> (In reply to Max Bruckner from comment #8)
> > Nevertheless I disagree that there is no "overflow" or "underflow". It's a
> > question of how you define the two w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81753
Bug ID: 81753
Summary: Building of cross-compiler for powerpc-darwin7 is
broken
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81754
Bug ID: 81754
Summary: Building of cross compiler avr-elf is broken
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81701
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Aug 7 16:43:05 2017
New Revision: 250923
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250923&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-07 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/68829
* doc/invo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68829
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Aug 7 16:43:05 2017
New Revision: 250923
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250923&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-07 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/68829
* doc/invo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81701
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68829
Bug 68829 depends on bug 81701, which changed state.
Bug 81701 Summary: -fstack-arrays hehavior does not match documentation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81701
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68829
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
It is now possible to use -fmax-stack-var-size with -Ofast.
Closing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68829
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81755
Bug ID: 81755
Summary: Building of cross compiler for powerpc-wrs-vxworksmils
is broken
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81756
Bug ID: 81756
Summary: type attributes silently ignored on type declarations
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78266
--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Mon Aug 7 17:06:11 2017
New Revision: 250925
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250925&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix diff_type in expand_oacc_for char iter_type
2017-08-07 Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78266
--- Comment #6 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm not sure that solution is correct. A better solution would be to report an
error/warning stating that num_workers exceeds the size of the induction
variable. Also, in the case that user doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81753
acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78266
--- Comment #7 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to cesar from comment #6)
> I'm not sure that solution is correct.
Why ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78266
--- Comment #8 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Because num_gangs exceeds largest unsigned value that can be represented by the
induction variable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78266
--- Comment #9 from Tom de Vries ---
patch with test-suite (In reply to cesar from comment #8)
> Because num_gangs exceeds largest unsigned value that can be represented by
> the induction variable.
I think what you're trying to say here is that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78266
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67493
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69389
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Aug 7 18:34:29 2017
New Revision: 250929
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250929&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/69389
* gimplify.c (goa_stabilize_expr): Handle BIT_I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81757
Bug ID: 81757
Summary: function reference on nonnull and noexcept
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81525
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81525
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
The bug is that GCC is replacing the auto with the implicit template argument
of the generic lambda.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81359
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81116
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81755
Olivier Hainque changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81741
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Pelissier ---
I can reproduce the behavior without __builtin_constant_p by removing it from
the M_ASSUME macro :
# define M_ASSUME(x)\
( (x) ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81755
--- Comment #2 from Olivier Hainque ---
Author: hainque
Date: Mon Aug 7 20:13:53 2017
New Revision: 250931
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250931&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Olivier Hainque
PR target/81755
* config/vxworksae.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81755
Olivier Hainque changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81625
--- Comment #5 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
I tried build several AVR toolchains from 3.4.6 to 7.1.0 and I can confirm that
code size increases as described. I suspect for AVR this might start already
from 3.x -> 4.x
Checked Bug 17549 - [4.0 R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81758
Bug ID: 81758
Summary: [OOP] Broken vtab
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: una
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72804
--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner ---
I'm testing a patch. The root cause is that the vsx_le_permute_*,
vsx_le_perm_load_* and vsx_le_perm_store_* patterns do not support the TImode
values in integer registers and it is these patterns that LRA i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81757
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81751
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #11 from DIL ---
The additional problem you observe with gfortran/7.1 described in the comment
"2017-05-26 22:43:21 UTC" seems to be another gfortran compiler bug introduced
in GCC/7.0. I have just filed a bug report for it (#81758).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81758
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81759
Bug ID: 81759
Summary: Improve data tracking for _pext_u64 and
__builtin_ffsll
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81760
Bug ID: 81760
Summary: attribute target uses the wrong default function
argument
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81759
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81761
Bug ID: 81761
Summary: assembler error on __func__ et al. on attribute target
overloads
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81721
--- Comment #1 from Juro Bystricky ---
This patch fixes the issue:
http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2017-August/140486.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81721
Juro Bystricky changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juro.bystricky at intel dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81762
Bug ID: 81762
Summary: errors defining attribute target overloads of the same
function template
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81758
--- Comment #2 from DIL ---
No, at this point I do not, unfortunately. These OOP bugs tend to show up at
higher levels, so it is not always clear how to reduce it to something small. I
will try to reduce it to something smaller, but not sure how
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41565
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2009-10-04 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52387
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #14 from Eric Galla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81668
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81593
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Mon Aug 7 23:51:27 2017
New Revision: 250936
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250936&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-08-07 Michael Meissner
PR target/81593
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
