https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86637
Bug ID: 86637
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected block, have
in inlining_chain_to_json, at
optinfo-emit-json.cc:293
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69224
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to nightstrike from comment #11)
> Will this be back ported to 6 and 7?
This PR itself didn't see any patch, the patch that fixed it was probably
(didn't double-check) r255267 which itself isn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52509
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Note I didn't followup on my proposal as I didn't have time to compare
bootstrap times (on a non-multilib platform it will likely even regress because
in stage3
we build both the host and the target libstdc+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86638
Bug ID: 86638
Summary: Og guality failures without -ftree-sra
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86569
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jul 23 07:48:56 2018
New Revision: 262928
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262928&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/86569
* cp-gimplify.c (cp_fold): Don't fold compari
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86621
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
> r262923 adds the missing logic to prevent the "unknown bound" kind of warning
> unless -Walloca-larger-than has been explicitly specified. i386
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59480
--- Comment #19 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #15)
> Tobias, I'm currently playing with something like the attached, which seems
> only moderately more complex and passes all my tests so far. If you have
> ways to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86619
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias, missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86617
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86614
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Summary|duplicate -Warra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86610
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86637
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86609
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86636
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86626
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86627
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86633
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86638
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
F.i., take pr56154-1.c:
...
1 /* PR debug/56154 */
2 /* { dg-do run } */
3 /* { dg-options "-g" } */
4 /* { dg-additional-sources "pr56154-aux.c" } */
5
6 #include "../nop.h"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86628
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86630
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
GCC assumes that inttypes.h contains PRIx64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86631
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86632
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86639
Bug ID: 86639
Summary: building gcc from source fails with Mac OS 10.9
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82108
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ketan.surender at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86626
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Summ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86632
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86638
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86617
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
this comment in match.pd made me look at operand_equal_p:
/* Simplify x - x.
This is unsafe for certain floats even in non-IEEE formats.
In IEEE, it is unsafe because it does wrong for NaNs.
Also n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86622
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86620
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86627
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86617
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> but I guess that doesn't work because the counting is missing. OTOH
> two same SAVE_EXPRs () are not operand_equal_p but SAVE_EXPRs have
> TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86640
Bug ID: 86640
Summary: [8/9 regression] ICE in combine
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86640
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86641
Bug ID: 86641
Summary: Regression: non-ODR used auto class data members fail
to deduce.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86642
Bug ID: 86642
Summary: Spurious return type warning with enable_if
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77923
--- Comment #1 from Eric Fiselier ---
Ping. I keep hitting this more and more.
GCC seems to be warning because the declaration includes the CXX scope
specifier "::foo". Removing the "::" seems to work. However, removing the "::"
causes the code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86625
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86640
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86617
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018, bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86617
>
> --- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86617
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Yes. Sure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86638
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Hmm, it sounds like DCE/DSE should insert
>
> # DEBUG x$a => x$a_11
>
> kind debug stmts. IIRC SRA does more than that, adding DECL_DEBUG_EXPRs
> with magic.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86643
Bug ID: 86643
Summary: [9 Regression] basic_ostringstream usage leads
to:undefined reference to
`std::__cxx11::basic_stringstream
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86643
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86619
--- Comment #2 from Michael Veksler ---
>> type-based alias analysis doesn't distinguish between int[2] and int[3].
Is it just the way GCC implements type-based alias analysis,
or is it defined that way in the C and C++ standards?
I suspect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86628
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> Yeah, generally we can't associate because (x*y)*z may not overflow because
> x == 0 but x*(y*z) may because y*z overflows.
We can do it
- in the wrapping case (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86547
--- Comment #2 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
I dug a bit deeper and found that this used to compile without errors on
gcc-4_8_5-release.
Bisect points to s390-specific commit 7b1bda1c, which first appeared in
gcc-4_9_0-release:
2013-06-06 Vlad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86627
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86605
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86642
W E Brown changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||webrown.cpp at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86639
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82092
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zfefm at gmx dot de
--- Comment #17 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85704
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86619
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018, mickey.veksler at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86619
>
> --- Comment #2 from Michael Veksler ---
> >> type-based alias analysis doesn'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86643
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Culprit is r262474 - "P0935R0 Eradicating unnecessarily explicit default
constructors"
Looking closer at the example, it doesn't use std::basic_ostringstream as
advertised but:
std::ostringstream buf2("t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86642
Steinar H. Gunderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86618
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86628
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86628
>
> --- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86644
Bug ID: 86644
Summary: [9 Regression] UBSAN error:
tree-vect-patterns.c:225:17: runtime error: shift
exponent 64 is too large for 32-bit type 'int'
Product: gcc
V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85704
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection,|
|needs-reduction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86643
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86513
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86630
--- Comment #3 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> GCC assumes that inttypes.h contains PRIx64
It does. gcc/system.h has:
/* Define this so that inttypes.h defines the PRI?64 macros even
when compiling wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86642
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Steinar H. Gunderson from comment #0)
> Same issue with 4.9, so no regression. Clang has the same issue.
That should have been your first clue that the problem is at your end, not in
both comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77923
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66159
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eric at efcs dot ca
--- Comment #5 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86642
--- Comment #4 from Steinar H. Gunderson ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> (In reply to Steinar H. Gunderson from comment #0)
> > Same issue with 4.9, so no regression. Clang has the same issue.
>
> That should have been your f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86644
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86630
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86645
Bug ID: 86645
Summary: [9 Regression] UBSAN error: tree-cfg.c:7874:26:
runtime error: load of value 4293224825, which is not
a valid value for type 'dump_flag'
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86645
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86635
--- Comment #1 from Senthil Kumar Selvaraj ---
Created attachment 44422
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44422&action=edit
pr86635.patch
Looks like ud_dce removes the insn that sets reg:SF r22 because the insn says
r22 is clo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86617
--- Comment #8 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Mon Jul 23 13:23:51 2018
New Revision: 262933
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262933&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc:
2018-07-23 Bernd Edlinger
PR c/86617
* genmat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86646
Bug ID: 86646
Summary: Special member function 'cannot be defaulted' if type
alias is used
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78809
--- Comment #43 from Wilco ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #42)
> just checked in the patch for fixing the unsigned char issue as:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=262907
That looks it is using unsigned char accesse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86619
--- Comment #4 from Michael Veksler ---
It is interesting to check the impact on numerical C++ benchmarks.
Fortran has a conceptual restrict on all its parameter arrays,
since aliasing is not allowed.
void f(int * __restrict__ v1, int * __rest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86625
--- Comment #4 from Chris Elrod ---
Created attachment 44423
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44423&action=edit
8x16 * 16x6 kernel for avx2.
Here is a scaled down version to reproduce most of the the problem for
avx2-capable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86625
--- Comment #5 from Chris Elrod ---
Created attachment 44424
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44424&action=edit
Smaller avx512 kernel that still spills into the stack
This generated 18 total `vmovapd` (I think there'd ideally
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85704
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86635
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #2 from Georg-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86636
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks for filing this.
Segfault happens here in optrecord_json_writer::location_to_json:
206 obj->set ("file", new json::string (LOCATION_FILE (loc)));
due to a NULL value for LOCATION_FILE (loc).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86635
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
As a work-around -fno-tree-ter appears to work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86625
--- Comment #6 from Chris Elrod ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> If you see spilling on the manually unrolled loop register pressure is
> somehow an issue.
In the matmul kernel:
D = A * X
where D is 16x14, A is 16xN, and X is N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86519
--- Comment #9 from Qing Zhao ---
> --- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
> FWIW, it would be safer and more deterministic to fold these invalid calls to
> some non-zero value that it is to emit the invalid library call.
could you please provide
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86618
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86644
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86516
--- Comment #2 from Paul Gotch ---
I can reproduce this at will with GCC 7.3 it does not reproduce with GCC 8
// Compile with g++ -c -Wextra -Wall -Werror -O3 test.cpp
#include
class Foo
{
public:
Foo() {}
virtual ~Foo()
{
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86625
--- Comment #7 from Chris Elrod ---
(In reply to Chris Elrod from comment #6)
> However, for column 23 (2944/128 = 23) with -O3 and column 25 for -O2 of the
> 32 columns of A
Correction: it was the 16x13 version that used stack data after loadin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86591
--- Comment #2 from Carl Love ---
Author: carll
Date: Mon Jul 23 16:16:41 2018
New Revision: 262934
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262934&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2018-07-23 Carl Love
PR 86591
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86591
Carl Love changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86646
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69224
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Agreed. I don't see a lot of value in backporting this fix to the release
branches. One could argue that decision means this should move to CLOSED as
it's been fixed for gcc-8 and the trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86647
Bug ID: 86647
Summary: Test on constant expression (unsigned) -1 < 0 triggers
a spurious -Wtype-limits warning
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86648
Bug ID: 86648
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE on class template argument
deduction
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86648
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86621
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86649
Bug ID: 86649
Summary: [9 regression] g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19476-1.C fails
starting with r262928
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86519
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
The code is undefined so the return value doesn't really matter but
conservatively, I think any non-zero value would work. What to do is a
judgment call between letting the library call return some (possibly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86650
Bug ID: 86650
Summary: -Warray-bounds missing inlining context
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70940
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Jul 23 19:40:28 2018
New Revision: 262935
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262935&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/70940 optimize pmr::resource_adaptor for allocators using m
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
