https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89390
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 19 08:38:54 2019
New Revision: 269007
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269007&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/89390
* error.c (qualified_name_lookup_error): Only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89391
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 19 08:40:07 2019
New Revision: 269008
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269008&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/89391
* typeck.c (build_reinterpret_cast_1): Don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89387
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 19 08:43:23 2019
New Revision: 269009
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269009&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/89387
* lambda.c (maybe_generic_this_capture): Don'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89271
--- Comment #5 from Alan Modra ---
Created attachment 45760
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45760&action=edit
Current set of patches
It turns out there is a lot more than just wrong register_move_cost. This
patchset does fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89393
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
--- Comment #30 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 19 08:57:24 2019
New Revision: 269010
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269010&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/89303
* g++.dg/torture/pr89303.C: Move ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
--- Comment #31 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 19 08:59:21 2019
New Revision: 269011
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269011&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/89303
* g++.dg/torture/pr89303.C: Move ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83118
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89391
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89390
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89392
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82968
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89394
--- Comment #2 from spinpx ---
It can be reproduced in bintuils commit
c72e75a64030b0f6535a80481f37968ad55c333a (Feb 19 2019)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89395
--- Comment #2 from spinpx ---
It can be reproduced in commit c72e75a64030b0f6535a80481f37968ad55c333a (Feb 19
2019)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89392
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
So the odd thing is that pta_obstack and bitmap_default_obstack seem to
allocate
from the same memory...
(gdb) p pta_obstack
$59 = {elements = 0x33fcaa8, heads = 0x33fca88, obstack = {chunk_size = 65536,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89396
Bug ID: 89396
Summary: objdump: Out of memory in objalloc.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89397
Bug ID: 89397
Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in build_call_expr_loc_array at
gcc/tree.c:11563 since r229082
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89397
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89329
--- Comment #2 from Jungmin Song ---
My understanding is that the compiler with O2 assumes that 'i' should be under
ARR_MAX becuase there was undifend behavior, if it was not.
Would you please point me to where is is in C standard? Becuase I'm no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89392
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cmtice at google dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89376
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89363
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89398
Bug ID: 89398
Summary: objdump: Out of memory in xmalloc.c (libiberty)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89388
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83118
--- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Compiling the reduced test
type :: any_vector
class(*), allocatable :: v(:)
end type
type(any_vector) :: x, y
x%v = ['foo','bar']
end
with -fsanitize=address gives
==54286==ERROR: AddressSanitize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89398
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89396
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89378
--- Comment #2 from Paul Hua ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> MSA is new, so not sure if it is a regression. Please fill out
> known-to-work.
r267643 not iced, but fails to optimize the code.
f1:
.frame $sp,16,$31
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89387
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89357
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Kretz ---
I agree. The corresponding C test case produces equivalent f0 and f1:
void g(int*);
void f0() {
__attribute__((aligned(128))) int x;
g(&x);
}
void f1() {
_Alignas(128) int x;
g(&x);
}
And I agree
oftfp-linux-gnueabi --build=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
--host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --target=armv7a-softfp-linux-gnueabi
--with-ld=/usr/bin/armv7a-softfp-linux-gnueabi-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/armv7a-softfp-linux-gnueabi-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-269006-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-armv7a-softfp
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.1 20190219 (experimental) (GCC)
yes-rtl-df-extra-armv7a-softfp
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.1 20190219 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89330
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45733|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89400
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89399
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88074
--- Comment #30 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 19 12:46:48 2019
New Revision: 269015
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269015&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-02-19 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/88074
* to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88074
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Summary|[7/8/9 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89037
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
Version|9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60144
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
I don't understand the goal of the block (line 1651 of gcc/fortran/match.c)
/* The gfc_match_assignment() above may have returned a MATCH_NO
where the assignment was to a named constant. Check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89397
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69471
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
A patch i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89353
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89355
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89365
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87924
--- Comment #2 from Chung-Lin Tang ---
Author: cltang
Date: Tue Feb 19 14:10:15 2019
New Revision: 269016
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269016&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-02-19 Chung-Lin Tang
PR c/87924
gcc/c/
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89397
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Feb 19 14:19:33 2019
New Revision: 269017
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269017&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Set ix86_fpmath to FPMATH_387 without SSE
ix86_fpmath should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89393
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89401
Bug ID: 89401
Summary: The generated object file does not automatically
relocate the address using the cl link
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89393
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89401
--- Comment #1 from syscall ---
gcc -v:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc64
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=D:/Program\ Files\
(x86)/mingw64/bin/../libexec/gcc/x86_64-w64-mingw32/8.1.0/lto-wrapper.exe
Target: x86_64-w64-mingw32
Configured with: ../../..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82864
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89402
Bug ID: 89402
Summary: warning: ‘void _ZNKSt4hashIeEclEe()’ specifies less
restrictive attribute than its target
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89402
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||alphaev68-linux-gnu
Version|unk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89399
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89402
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89402
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
BUILDSTDERR: ../../../../libstdc++-v3/src/c++98/compatibility-ldbl.cc:77:17:
warning: 'void _ZNKSt4hashIeEclEe()' specifies less restrictive attribute than
its target 'std::size_t std::tr1::hash<_Tp>::operato
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89399
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53991
pc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89338
pc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89339
pc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89399
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
At least from the comments, get_sub_rtx is like single_set, except that it
doesn't allow insns with two sets where one of them is dead. If we initially
checked with single_set and then use get_sub_rtx, it mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89169
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Tue Feb 19 15:42:09 2019
New Revision: 269019
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269019&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/89169
internal/cpu: do not require POWER8
Al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53991
pc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #13 from pc at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87924
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Tue Feb 19 16:04:17 2019
New Revision: 269020
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269020&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR87924] OpenACC wait clauses without async-arguments: remove XFAIL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89271
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Created attachment 45767
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45767&action=edit
reg_move_cost patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89271
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Created attachment 45768
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45768&action=edit
NON_SPECIAL_REGS removal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89271
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I currently have the two previous patches in my stack, and I see no
regressions (on powerpc64-linux -m32/-m64).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89271
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Erm. No new ICEs, I mean. Various tests expect different generated code
then you get with that. Some of it is an improvement.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78314
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #23 from Wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89339
pc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
--- Comment #1 from pc at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89338
pc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
--- Comment #1 from pc at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89392
ctice at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ctice at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89393
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-02-19 9:28 a.m., jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Would adding
> // { dg-require-weak "" }
> to the testcase help?
I will test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89403
Bug ID: 89403
Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in maybe_clone_body, at
cp/optimize.c:693
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80529
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
My previous arguments for having a flag for this have been in the positive
form, i.e., so that it can be enabled separately, but I'd also like to state it
in its negative form, i.e., so that one can do -std=c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34721
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89404
Bug ID: 89404
Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in build_value_init_noctor, at
cp/init.c:467
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68771
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89405
Bug ID: 89405
Summary: [8/9 Regression] ICE in import_export_decl, at
cp/decl2.c:2959
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66918
pskocik at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pskocik at gmail dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66918
--- Comment #8 from pskocik at gmail dot com ---
I'd also very much welcome a way to silence this (like with
-Wno-undefined-inline on clang).
My reason for wanting it is I'd like to prototype a non-static inline function
in one header (a fast-to-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89404
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89404
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50928
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48562
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #13 from Eric Gallag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61152
--- Comment #12 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #11)
> Can the bug be marked as resolved?
I don't think so:
(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #10)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #9)
> > There ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
--- Comment #15 from Martin Sebor ---
I think the following smaller test case independent of libstdc++ captures the
same issue as the bigger test case in comment #4. Again, declaring f()
noexcept avoids the warning (but it's not a solution in ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63633
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> Can the bug be marked as resolved?
It already was, but then it was reopened because a duplicate was found:
(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #5)
> Reop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89403
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65657
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63633
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #32 from Eric Gallag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89403
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.5
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89384
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Feb 19 17:55:33 2019
New Revision: 269024
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269024&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-02-19 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/89384
* trans-ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89405
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89384
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50928
--- Comment #20 from Joel Sherrill ---
I filed this in 2011 and we dropped RTEMS support for the m32c last year for
our next release. If you all think it is fixed, please feel free to close it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89405
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r241137 or something around that one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68771
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3)
> Maybe Iain will know what's up.
Yes, that symbol is a problem (esp. with LTO) .. but I believe that I've
committed the changes to remove it to the 7 branch. Pleas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89169
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
