https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83803
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83805
Bug ID: 83805
Summary: Wrong constant merging for objects in different
address spaces
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81821
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Thu Jan 11 15:16:21 2018
New Revision: 256536
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256536&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/81821
* config/rx/rx.md (BW): New mode attri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83805
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||addr-space, wrong-code
Ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81821
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Thu Jan 11 15:18:38 2018
New Revision: 256538
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256538&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline
2018-01-11 Oleg Endo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83801
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.2.1
Summary|[avr] String
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83805
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81821
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83801
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 43107
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43107&action=edit
proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83805
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> If so, avr should override the select_section and unique_section target
> hooks and return something different for the __flash strings.
I am just working on a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83805
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.2.1
Summary|Wrong consta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83803
--- Comment #2 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Forgot compiler info:
ed@ed-VirtualBox:~$ ./bin/bin/gfortran -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=./bin/bin/gfortran
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/ed/bin/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83800
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68860
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37097|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83695
--- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Thu Jan 11 15:41:41 2018
New Revision: 256541
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256541&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/83695
* gimple-loop-linterc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83805
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Well, 7.2 certainly doesn't have any special casing for address spaces in
categorize_decl_for_section etc., so before claiming it is a regression you'd
better bisect what change actually changed it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83787
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83178
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Jan 11 15:56:07 2018
New Revision: 256542
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256542&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/83178
* g++.dg/ipa/devirt-22.C: Adjust scan-dump-tim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83178
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83695
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83805
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Well, 7.2 certainly doesn't have any special casing for address spaces in
> categorize_decl_for_section etc., so before claiming it is a regression
> you'd bet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83770
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83776
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83805
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> If so, avr should override the select_section and unique_section target
> hooks and return something different for the __flash strings.
Also tried TARGET_ASM_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83805
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Well, you have 3 objects, str1, str2 and the string literal, if the compiler
thinks all 3 are needed, it emits all of them. Without -fmerge-all-constants
str1 can't be merged with str2 nor with any other obj
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83805
--- Comment #8 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Well, you have 3 objects, str1, str2 and the string literal, if the compiler
> thinks all 3 are needed, it emits all of them. Without
> -fmerge-all-constants
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60871
--- Comment #22 from Neil Kindlon ---
I am so sorry. Please disregard my earlier comments. It seems I hadn't exported
the path variables to the correct correct compiler. When actually compiled with
7.1.0, there is no problem. My apologies.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83805
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't see any bug actually. You are just saying that the str1 variable is
__flash, during optimization (already in C FE) it optimizes str1[i] into
"0123456789"[i] and that is the string literal that is mer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83798
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83805
--- Comment #10 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> I don't see any bug actually. You are just saying that the str1 variable is
> __flash, during optimization (already in C FE) it optimizes str1[i] into
> "012
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83801
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||addr-space
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83801
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
*** Bug 83805 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83805
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Component|middle-en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81155
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83782
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35513
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Hidden ifunc address has the similar issue, see the testcase in PR 83782.
If targetm.binds_local_p needs to know if the symbol is used for read,
write or branch, so that all function pointers, including hidden ones
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35513
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rafael.espindola at gmail dot
com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83801
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83718
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Jan 11 17:46:01 2018
New Revision: 256544
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256544&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/83718
* tree-inline.c (copy_cfg_body): Adjus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83189
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Jan 11 17:47:20 2018
New Revision: 256545
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256545&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/83189
* gimple-ssa-isolate-paths.c (isolate_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83785
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I suspect this has the same cause as bug 78459, bug 80863 and bug 83760,
all of which involve ICEs in maybe_record_trace_start for SH and the first
two of which mysteriously went away (but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81155
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jan.kratochvil at redhat dot
com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83718
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83532
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83801
--- Comment #6 from gandalf at winds dot org ---
(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #1)
> Old v7.2 does it correctly: one string in flash, one in RAM.
My more specific testcase (comment #3 in PR83729) references a 32-byte string
in a func
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83806
Bug ID: 83806
Summary: Spurious unused-but-set-parameter with nullptr
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82728
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jan 11 19:08:41 2018
New Revision: 256550
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256550&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/82728 - wrong -Wunused-but-set-variable
PR c++/827
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82799
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jan 11 19:08:41 2018
New Revision: 256550
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256550&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/82728 - wrong -Wunused-but-set-variable
PR c++/827
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83690
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jan 11 19:08:41 2018
New Revision: 256550
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256550&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/82728 - wrong -Wunused-but-set-variable
PR c++/827
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82728
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83690
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81155
--- Comment #6 from Jan Kratochvil ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> where gdb sees the difference and why doesn't it make the file
> containing main the default?
pr43051-1.exe.good
<1><117>: Abbrev Number: 3 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83653
--- Comment #8 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Ah, I see what the problem is.
unsigned long i, nr = 1UL << compound_order(page);
...
page_ref_sub(page, nr); // calls __builtin_constant_p(nr) eventually
The problem is that there is a path to __builtin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81155
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Thanks. Is that something that can be fixed in GDB easily?
I mean, for -freorder-blocks-and-partition optimized main we can't pretend it
is a single range when it is not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83653
--- Comment #9 from Matthew Wilcox ---
Maybe I'm a little slow, but I don't see what the path is that sets 'nr' to 0.
It's 1UL << compound_order. Typically, compound_order is 0, although it may be
anything up to log2(number of pages in the mach
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82682
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 11 19:34:56 2018
New Revision: 256551
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256551&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/82682
* ree.c (combine_reaching_defs): Optimize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43486
--- Comment #13 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Thu Jan 11 19:38:52 2018
New Revision: 256552
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256552&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add some reproducers for issues found developing the location-wrappers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83653
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81155
--- Comment #8 from Jan Kratochvil ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Thanks. Is that something that can be fixed in GDB easily?
Expecting a significant performance hit on initial scan of a file when
.gdb_index/.debug_names is no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83799
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 43109
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43109&action=edit
Reduced test case for the first error
Here's a reduced version of the first error seen in the original attachme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82682
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83794
--- Comment #3 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Thu Jan 11 19:58:55 2018
New Revision: 256553
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256553&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/83794
misc/cgo/test: avoid endless loop when we c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83794
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from Ian Lanc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79383
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Jan 11 20:24:36 2018
New Revision: 256554
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256554&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-11 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/79383
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79383
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83653
--- Comment #11 from Matthew Wilcox ---
I'm sorry, I still don't get it.
What I think you're saying is that GCC performs this optimisation:
nr = 1UL << compound_order(page);
atomic_sub_return(x, nr);
into:
if (PageHead(page))
atomic_sub_ret
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83653
--- Comment #12 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Matthew Wilcox from comment #9)
> Maybe I'm a little slow, but I don't see what the path is that sets 'nr' to
> 0. It's 1UL << compound_order. Typically, compound_order is 0, although it
> ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83330
--- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Jan 11 20:44:46 2018
New Revision: 256555
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256555&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Align stack frame if argument is passed on stack
When a func
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83203
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 11 20:49:40 2018
New Revision: 256556
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256556&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/83203
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_vector_i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29651
--- Comment #12 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #9)
> An easy fix to this would be to disallow kind=2 integer as an argument
> during checking.
Since SIGNAL is a GNU extension, we are at liberty what to allow.
Wha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83653
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83735
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83803
--- Comment #3 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 43110
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43110&action=edit
patchlet (untested)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81657
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83653
--- Comment #14 from Matthew Wilcox ---
Confirmed this fixes the problem. I'll send it to Tony and see if he likes it.
May I add your Signed-off-by to the patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83653
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Matthew Wilcox from comment #14)
> Confirmed this fixes the problem. I'll send it to Tony and see if he likes
> it. May I add your Signed-off-by to the patch?
Sure. Feel free to reformat it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83203
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83808
Bug ID: 83808
Summary: "internal compiler error" for invalid input
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83797
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, easyhack
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83779
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79220
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83799
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Candidate patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg00984.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83773
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82922
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Incremental patch for the testsuite:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg00962.html
Unfortunately it sounds like it might be too late to enable the option in GCC
8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82922
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Correction, the patch is here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg00935.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83779
--- Comment #5 from Walter Spector ---
Thanks for mentioning that, Martin.
A couple of us in the project I work on were reviewing the options we specify
in our debug builds to try to smoke out problems. We already use options like
-Wall, -Wextr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83778
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
I still haven't been able to reproduce this; sorry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83800
--- Comment #2 from sisyphus1 at optusnet dot com.au ---
The issue with sqrtq() is more widespread than I expected.
Checking the square roots of the integer values from 2 to 300, I found that
sqrtq differs from mpfr for 2, 6, 8, 13, 15, 19, 24, 30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81926
--- Comment #40 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Fri Jan 12 05:32:31 2018
New Revision: 256562
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256562&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Avoid Solaris/SPARC comparison failures with Solaris as (PR bootstrap/81926)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39508
Roel Van de Paar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roel at vandepaar dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83809
Bug ID: 83809
Summary: epiphany: a-direct.ads:478:09: alignment for
"Search_Typeb119s" must be at least 8
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83810
Bug ID: 83810
Summary: sh: s-scaval.adb:103:07: warning: "IV_Ilf" overlays
smaller object
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83811
Bug ID: 83811
Summary: fortran 'e' format broken for single digit exponents
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
101 - 193 of 193 matches
Mail list logo
