https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89027
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2019-1-24
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89010
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89015
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89002
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88994
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu Jan 24 08:27:39 2019
New Revision: 268233
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268233&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix broken filename for .gcda files starting with '..' (PR gcov-profile/88
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
--- Comment #51 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
>
> --- Comment #49 from Thomas Koenig ---
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88994
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89031
Bug ID: 89031
Summary: Should not report unused result when explicitly cast
to void
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89000
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
>
> We downgraded our toolchain to 7.4 because our process currently expects the
> gcov output to be consistent with previous output from our heritage
> baseline. We do need the output, and ideally it would b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89032
Bug ID: 89032
Summary: Missing documentation for GCC 7.4.0
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: web
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89027
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89015
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openmp
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89031
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This attribute is documented this way. I know there are a few duplicates of
this bug already filed too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
--- Comment #52 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #49)
> Argh. Sacrificing performance for the sake of bugware...
But note that in this PR (specifically for avx512 vectors on this cpu), the OP
says that the recip vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89018
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
--- Comment #53 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
>
> --- Comment #52 from Marc Glisse ---
> (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #49
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89021
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I think that to avoid surprises -mno-mmx should be the default on x86 and thus
MMX code would need to explicitely supply -mmmx. Would that work around the
issue or would we see odd errors when using the mm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89024
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89027
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37804
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid |
Target|x86_64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89028
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-* i?86-*-*
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89029
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89008
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jan 24 09:31:51 2019
New Revision: 268234
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268234&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-24 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89008
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Bill, you now need r268233 or earlier on the GCC 8 branch to reproduce the
latent issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89031
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89032
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34724
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43694
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65608
Bug 65608 depends on bug 34724, which changed state.
Bug 34724 Summary: Trouble with friend declaration across namespaces
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34724
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89031
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66425
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||porton at narod dot ru
--- Comment #37 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51584
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47346
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prasoonsaurav.nit at gmail dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59002
Bug 59002 depends on bug 51584, which changed state.
Bug 51584 Summary: Erroneous compilation when deriving from an inaccessible
friend class.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51584
What|Removed |Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51757
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||link-failure
Last reconfirmed|2012-0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88993
--- Comment #6 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
I switched the warning off in libguestfs, but before it was
switched off I got all these warnings (errors in fact because
we use -Werror in development builds).
qemuopts.c: In function 'qemuopts_to_conf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52625
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2012-03-20 00:00:00 |2019-1-24
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89027
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45517
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45517&action=edit
gcc9-pr89027.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89020
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89001
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So do we need a GTY hash table mapping VAR_DECLs to lifetime-extended temporary
count and use that during the mangling?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87187
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89023
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89025
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89029
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Peter Dimov from comment #0)
> (This is simplified from an attempt to create a statically-diagnosed assert
> facility that would warn when the asserted expression is known to be false:
> https:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89032
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87214
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 87214, which changed state.
Bug 87214 Summary: [9 Regression] r263772 miscompiled 520.omnetpp_r in SPEC CPU
2017
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87214
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89033
Bug ID: 89033
Summary: gfortran accepts invalid code in select type construct
with pointer assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56643
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87214
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87214
>
> Martin Liška changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65608
Bug 65608 depends on bug 56820, which changed state.
Bug 56820 Summary: elaborated-type-specifier friend incorrectly looked up
beyond innermost enclosing namespace
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56820
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59930
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wd11 at leicester dot ac.uk
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56820
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21146
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
EDG still accepts this, but Clang doesn't:
21146.cc:13:18: error: member 'S' found in multiple base classes of different
types
friend class A;
^
21146.cc:7:8: note: member found by ambig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87214
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #7)
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2019, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87214
> >
> > Martin Liška changed:
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89008
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.4.1, 8.2.1
--- Comment #11 from Richa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89008
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jan 24 11:07:19 2019
New Revision: 268235
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268235&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-24 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89034
Bug ID: 89034
Summary: [libgomp, openacc] dg-shouldfail in abort-1.c allows
libgomp asserts to go undetected
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89034
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89034
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
Thomas,
is this replacement for abort-1.c OK for trunk?
If so, I'll commit this, otherwise, I'll commit this as abort-nvptx.c or some
such.
Thanks
- Tom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89006
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45518
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45518&action=edit
gcc9-pr89006.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89029
--- Comment #4 from Peter Dimov ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> c.f. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2018-03/msg00031.html and the replies
Yes, pretty much.
> I doubt we would catch many bugs that way, as most bugs would in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87214
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
I guess it's not related to qsort (the files looks different and fine:
#include
#include "spec_qsort.h"
static void spec_swap(void *x, void *y, size_t l) {
/* Swap elements of an array byte by byte. Not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87214
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
Only following 2 LTO object files trigger the segfault:
simulator/cpar.o and simulator/ccomponent.o (rest are -fno-lto object files).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59930
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppluzhnikov at google dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59815
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65608
Bug 65608 depends on bug 59815, which changed state.
Bug 59815 Summary: Apparently bogus error: 'Outer' is already declared in this
scope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59815
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57376
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nicolas.bertolotti@mathwork
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65608
Bug 65608 depends on bug 60611, which changed state.
Bug 60611 Summary: friend function declaration rejected when the namespace in
which it is declared is not explicitely specified in the declaration
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60611
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61327
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed for GCC 6 by r227023, which fixed PR 66957.
The examples here look different enough that we should probably add them to the
testsuite before closing this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65619
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed for GCC 6 by r227023, which fixed PR 66957.
The example here looks different enough that we should probably add it to the
testsuite before closing this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88999
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
--- Comment #17 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I played around with the source to do some conservative 2x manual unrolling in
the two hottest functions in 510.parest_r (3 more-or-less identical tight FMA
loops). This was to try out Richard's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89035
Bug ID: 89035
Summary: Request - builtins for unspecified and arbitrary
values
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019, ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
>
> --- Comment #17 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> I played around with the s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87187
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86549
Bug 86549 depends on bug 87187, which changed state.
Bug 87187 Summary: FAIL: gfortran.dg/short_circuiting_3.f90 -g -flto
(internal compiler error) on darwin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87187
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87187
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jan 24 12:36:14 2019
New Revision: 268236
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268236&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-24 Richard Biener
PR lto/87187
* tree-strea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89021
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1)
> Porbably we just need to add SSE alternatives to existing MMX builtins. C.f.
> [1].
>
> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-01/msg01393.html
Yes, and a few othe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89021
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89035
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
We already have
int x = x;
for one of those, no? Or just
int x;
but it tends to warn.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89035
--- Comment #2 from David Brown ---
Yes, "int x = x;" does give an unspecified value without a warning. But to me,
this looks much more like a workaround - while "int x =
__builtin_unspecified();" is clear in its intentions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88969
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
--- Comment #19 from Wilco ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #18)
> > 1) Unrolling for load-pair-forming vectorisation (Richard Sandiford's
> > suggestion)
>
> If that helps, sure (I'd have guessed uarchs are going to split
> load
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88974
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89020
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #2)
> > If virtualbox's shared folders are doing strange things with
> > files or is broken, not much that the gfortran developers
> > can do about that.
>
> He
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88951
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019, wilco at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
>
> --- Comment #19 from Wilco ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #18)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88988
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89008
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
Yes, fully agree -- I'll take care of that probably tomorrow. Too many
meetings this week...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89036
--- Comment #1 from Antony Polukhin ---
Compile with flags: -std=c++2a -fconcepts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87214
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 45521
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45521&action=edit
optimized dump with -mprefer-vector-width=256
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89036
Bug ID: 89036
Summary: ICE if destructor has a requires
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89037
Bug ID: 89037
Summary: checking ice emitting 128-bit bit-field initializer
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-checking, ice-on-valid-code
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87214
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 45520
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45520&action=edit
optimized dump with -mprefer-vector-width=128
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
--- Comment #26 from Bill Schmidt ---
I believe it's also incorrect (the assumption on the value being in element 3
is a big-endian statement) but latent because this is really hard to match.
I'll take an internal note to clean this up. I will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87214
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
The 2 problematic functions looks like:
void cComponent::reallocParamv(int size)
{
((void)0);
if (size!=(short)size)
throw cRuntimeError(this, "reallocParamv(%d): at most %d parameters
allowe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87214
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
and moveto does:
void cPar::moveto(cPar& other)
{
other.ownercomponent = ownercomponent;
other.p = p;
p =
# 62 "simulator/cpar.cc" 3 4
__null
# 62 "simulator/cpar.cc"
;
}
1 - 100 of 242 matches
Mail list logo
