https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84208
--- Comment #2 from Akhilesh Kumar ---
> Does it work on non-changed gcc 7.2 on arm?
Not yet verified because unable to cross compile gcc 7.2.
> And with arm do mean arm-linux-gnueabi as the target or aarch64-linux-gnu?
I am using arm-*-g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57218
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70929
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hmm, this actually looks reasonable for me too. Shall I give it a try and
figure out what incompatibilities we get here?
What about K&R prototypes?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84200
Sebastian Peryt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sebastian.peryt at intel dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80726
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65797
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|hubicka at ucw dot cz |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84106
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84107
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84137
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #11 from Christophe Lyon ---
My setup uses armeb-none-linux-gnueabihf (as opposed to armeb-eabi as you
report). I have never tried armeb-eabi.
I am also using qemu as simulator (in user mode, not in system mode).
The failure in init
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68028
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #9)
> Created attachment 43318 [details]
> Proposed patch
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> Richard was right - there is code that sets extra flags based upon the
> setting of -mcpu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83879
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Feb 5 09:19:18 2018
New Revision: 257383
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257383&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Document --dynamic-list-data option for --coverage usage.
2018-02-05 Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83879
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81917
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini ---
This variant causes the same ICE and it's a tad cleaner:
template using a = void;
template struct b
{
typedef int c;
}; template class b>;
template ::c> class f;
template class g { };
template class h
for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
but not with
$ ~/8-install-slow/bin/g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 8.0.1 20180205 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2018 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27855
--- Comment #55 from Richard Biener ---
I think the original report is about x87 math vs. SSE math. It's a bit hard to
benchmark this through the releases given changes in tuning and vector feature
sets (-march=native is out of the question).
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84137
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Feb 5 09:59:16 2018
New Revision: 257384
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257384&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix GCOV documentation (PR gcov-profile/84137).
2018-02-05 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84137
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38785
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|2010-02-19 12:17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39612
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2009-10-05 20:09:44 |2018-2-5
--- Comment #30 from Richard B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70929
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70929
>
> --- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Hmm, this actually looks reasonable for me to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84209
Bug ID: 84209
Summary: [avr] Don't split SP in split2
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84209
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84210
Bug ID: 84210
Summary: __ubsan_handle_builtin_unreachable shoun't be const
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27855
--- Comment #56 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #55)
> Note the original report used -O and Aldhy used -O2 but we are talking
> about a benchmark and when you use -ffast-math you also use -O3.
Thanks, I will kee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004
--- Comment #20 from Martin Liška ---
It's really fixed on trunk since r257023.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57218
--- Comment #13 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #12)
> Set component as IPA so it stays at my radar. It is probably too late for
> GCC 8 but I will try to finally take a look next stage1. Inlining those
> constructi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27855
--- Comment #57 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27855
>
> --- Comment #56 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84171
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84172
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27827
Bug 27827 depends on bug 27855, which changed state.
Bug 27855 Summary: [6/7/8 regression] reassociation causes the RA to be confused
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27855
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27855
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84179
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13962
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 84188 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84188
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82782
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Feb 5 11:15:55 2018
New Revision: 257388
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257388&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-02-05 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/82782
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82782
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84190
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84192
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |7.3.1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70401
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jyong at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84196
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84197
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84200
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84205
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84204
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84210
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84209
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|gjl at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84209
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 43338
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43338&action=edit
Proposed patch against v7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84106
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
When you will be revisiting your cost-model for loops, please also take a look
on this code. test2 has one assignment moved to separate loops, and it is about
twice as fast as test1 function (for gcc 4.8.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #12 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #11)
> My setup uses armeb-none-linux-gnueabihf (as opposed to armeb-eabi as you
> report). I have never tried armeb-eabi.
>
> I am also using qemu as simulator (i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84190
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84211
Bug ID: 84211
Summary: [avr] Perform a post-reload register optimization pass
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84210
--- Comment #2 from Andrey Ryabinin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Confirmed. Note that I'm not sure it makes no sense - it just means the
> function has no side-effect besides not returning ;)
>
Well, GCC docs say that con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84211
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004
--- Comment #21 from Jan Hubicka ---
> It's really fixed on trunk since r257023.
Seems like it just went latent. I do not see how that change can fix the
problem.
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84210
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84212
Bug ID: 84212
Summary: -Wno-* does not disable warnings from -flto link stage
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84208
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #13 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Aldy,
> pc: 8ca4, instr: e1c520fc
> pc: 4, instr: ea00089b
>
> I took a peek at the executable being run with "/my-arm-build/objdudump -D
> the-executable.exe", and I see we are failing in
> initialise
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81360
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
Should(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #14)
> The new test fails on arm and aarch64:
> FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr81360.C -O2 -flto -fuse-linker-plugin
> -fno-fat-lto-objects scan-ipa-dump icf "Equal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84204
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
The limit you set to scev-max-expr-size is quite low but I expect it just needs
a more complicated testcase to trigger this with larger values.
We apply this limit in tree-chrec.c very inconsequential so I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64501
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68028
--- Comment #11 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Richard,
> If the backend doesn't support mixing of -msingle-float/-mno-single-float
> within a compilation unit then this will only work if the user didn't mix TUs
> with conflicting setting at link-time
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84208
--- Comment #4 from Akhilesh Kumar ---
Please find Patch and test Case
I tried but unable to attached patch as Attachment :(
My Changes for address-use-after-scope which is working for X86 but not for ARM
target
---
gcc/asan.c | 30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84197
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63311
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2014-09-22 00:00:00 |2018-2-5
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84196
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63688
Allan Jensen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linux at carewolf dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84191
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004
--- Comment #22 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK, the bug reproduces with tree.c changes reverted and I see what is going on.
We have two files in res file we get:
2
lines.o 7
245 4d647b2020ca5815 PREVAILING_DEF_IRONLY _Z8validatev
334 4d647b2020ca5815
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84186
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, I would have thought it's needed too. The other compilers I tried accept
it with or without the 'template' keyword.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84170
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
When the code was written it was definitely beneficial to manually unroll, as
measurements at the time showed.
Any change would have to be based on measurements, not just unverified
assumptions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84210
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
I don't remember if the const was needed. I guess if the testcases added in
r217553 still pass even without the const then we can get rid of it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #14 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #13)
> Hi Aldy,
>
>
> > pc: 8ca4, instr: e1c520fc
> > pc: 4, instr: ea00089b
> >
> > I took a peek at the executable being run with "/my-arm-build/objdudump -D
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84213
Bug ID: 84213
Summary: 521.wrf_r from SPEC 2017 fails to build (link) with
LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004
--- Comment #23 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 43340
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43340&action=edit
Patch in am testing
This patch transitions the info to merged tree and adds sanity check that we
miss no resolut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84200
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Confirmed, thank you Martin for reporting that. I was able to reproduce that on
Zen.
I see ~25% regression on train size and reverting following predictor helps for
me:
-DEF_PREDICTOR (PRED_LOOP_EXIT, "loop e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84200
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #15 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #14)
> (In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #13)
> > Hi Aldy,
> >
> >
> > > pc: 8ca4, instr: e1c520fc
> > > pc: 4, instr: ea00089b
> > >
> > > I took a peek at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84200
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Sebastian Peryt from comment #1)
> I'm not sure if that can be treated as duplicate but that performance
> degradation looks like is related to PR84149.
I guess it will be a different story as it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84149
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #16 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #13)
> Hi Aldy,
>
>
> > pc: 8ca4, instr: e1c520fc
> > pc: 4, instr: ea00089b
> >
> > I took a peek at the executable being run with "/my-arm-build/objdudump -D
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #17 from Christophe Lyon ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #12)
> along with the isub8 subroutine, and continue chopping things similarly
> upward until you get to the abort that fails. Then see if you can chop
> non-depe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84214
Bug ID: 84214
Summary: recip and slp passes conflict
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78497
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Patrick.Schluter at ec dot
europa.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84179
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68028
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, nickc at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68028
>
> --- Comment #11 from Nick Clifton ---
> Hi Richard,
>
> > If the backend doesn't sup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84215
Bug ID: 84215
Summary: Random results in go/libgo tests
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #18 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #17)
> (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #12)
>
> > along with the isub8 subroutine, and continue chopping things similarly
> > upward until you get to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84216
Bug ID: 84216
Summary: std::get_time fails to parse output from
std::put_time, but strptime can parse them (c++11)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84145
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84191
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84215
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
What do you mean by "random results?" Can you post some output? Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004
--- Comment #24 from Matt Godbolt ---
Thanks so much for looking in to this Jan!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84212
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84195
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
--- Comment #33 from Douglas Mencken ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #32)
> Yes, run "make -k check" (add -jN to taste if you have multiple CPUs).
> And then run contrib/test_summary. See if that is as expected (compare
> it to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
--- Comment #34 from Douglas Mencken ---
And this https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00181.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
--- Comment #35 from Douglas Mencken ---
(In reply to Douglas Mencken from comment #34)
> And this https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00181.html
By merging that patch this issue is okay to close as resolved
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
