https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89539
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89539
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 1 08:10:19 2019
New Revision: 269301
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269301&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/89539
* dwarf2out.c (output_comdat_type_unit)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89541
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89539
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89536
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12245
--- Comment #71 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Frank Ch. Eigler from comment #70)
> > We could add a NATIVE_ENCODE_RANGE_EXPR that encodes a contiguous range of
> > bytes in native target representation. Of course that has to be kept
> > th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12245
--- Comment #72 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #71)
> (In reply to Frank Ch. Eigler from comment #70)
> > > We could add a NATIVE_ENCODE_RANGE_EXPR that encodes a contiguous range of
> > > bytes in native target r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89530
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Just a note to all these testcases, you could try to turn them into a single
source file testcases by defining optimize_me_not in the same file with
__attribute__((noipa)) on it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12245
--- Comment #73 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 1 Mar 2019, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12245
>
> --- Comment #72 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77604
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89534
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to jon_y from comment #1)
> Weak symbols aren't quite supported with PE, I'm not sure if making the
> symbol weak is the right approach.
>
> Do you have a test case to show this will lead to the cor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89497
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Component|lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89497
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 1 09:21:30 2019
New Revision: 269302
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269302&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-01 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/89497
* tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89543
Bug ID: 89543
Summary: Don't modify TREE_NO_WARNING during folding in place
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-checking, ice-on-valid-code
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89522
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89503
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 1 09:26:40 2019
New Revision: 269303
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269303&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/89503
* fold-const.c (fold_checksum_tree): I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89543
Bug 89543 depends on bug 89503, which changed state.
Bug 89503 Summary: Checking ICE in 'gcc.dg/warn-strlen-no-nul.c'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89503
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65403
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alexhenrie24 at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89524
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89503
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89532
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89538
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89540
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89541
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89542
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Also note that GCC 4.2.1 is no longer maintained.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89541
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
So we have
C.3857 = 1;
where the LHS is a CONST_DECL and this doesn't get a virtual definition.
This is arguably bad IL (a CONST_DECL LHS should have been rejected by
the GIMPLE verifier). We end up here
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82501
--- Comment #23 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Andrey Drobyshev from comment #22)
> Created attachment 45851 [details]
> Work-in-progress fix considering relocations
>
> I'm a bit stuck. I managed to precompute reloc value for the globals (t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82501
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #23)
> (In reply to Andrey Drobyshev from comment #22)
> > Created attachment 45851 [details]
> > Work-in-progress fix considering relocations
> >
> > I'm a bit stuck.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89541
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Quite similar to PR87117.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89544
Bug ID: 89544
Summary: Argument marshalling incorrectly assumes stack slots
are naturally aligned.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89534
--- Comment #3 from jon_y <10walls at gmail dot com> ---
My experience with weak symbols on mingw is that it will lead to an undefined
symbol error if it was the only symbol definition.
It only works if the weak symbol was encountered before the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89545
Bug ID: 89545
Summary: ABI clarification for over-aligned type stack passing
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63872
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Smaller testcase:
template
T make()
{
return { typename T::type{0} };
}
void f()
{
struct X {
using type = int;
X(int) { }
};
make();
}
local.cc: In function ‘void f()’:
local.cc:10:21:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63872
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89180
Bug 89180 depends on bug 63872, which changed state.
Bug 63872 Summary: -Wunused-local-typedefs warns incorrectly on a typedef
that's referenced from a template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63872
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61596
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
*** Bug 63872 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, I'm afraid I need to give up on the build_aggr_conv+desig11.C part of the
above patch, I really don't understand what C++ says that should be done.
I've tried to at least test the remaining part of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89482
--- Comment #10 from Ciro Santilli ---
I'm tempted to give it a shot, since doc current state makes me sad :-)
If I do start work, I'll ping here to avoid work duplication.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45863
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45863&action=edit
gcc9-pr71446.patch
That would be this (untested except for make check-c++all).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89051
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|9.0
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89544
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw ---
I think things start to go wrong in assign_parm_find_data_types. That calls
promote_function_mode, but that then has no target-specific action when the
type is a RECORD_TYPE, and it never calls the back-e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89544
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Dont know if it helps, but when I wrote my patch,
I remember the reason why parameter which have an address taken
is in use_register_for_decl
returns false here:
/* Honor addressability. */
if (TREE_AD
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89514
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89514
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 1 12:38:38 2019
New Revision: 269305
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269305&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-01 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88878
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
-fdebug-types-section should be OK now on the branch as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89539
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 1 12:38:38 2019
New Revision: 269305
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269305&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-01 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88878
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 1 12:38:38 2019
New Revision: 269305
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269305&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-01 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89544
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
PR 89545 seems very related.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89546
Bug ID: 89546
Summary: [8/9 Regression] Suspected arm flint miscompilation
starting with r255510
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89541
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 1 12:52:19 2019
New Revision: 269307
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269307&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-01 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/89541
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35362
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2013-12-24 00:00:00 |2019-3-1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89546
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38711
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2012-09-13 00:44:58 |2019-3-1
--- Comment #10 from Steven B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
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=89547
Bug ID: 89547
Summary: pthread_mutex_lock and pthread_cond_wait do not behave
properly when compiler with -flto
Product: gcc
Version: lto
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89535
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Fri Mar 1 13:05:40 2019
New Revision: 269308
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269308&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix mask type choice in vectorizable_call (PR 89535)
Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89535
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86952
Daniel Borkmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel at iogearbox dot net
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79885
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth.at.gcc at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88355
--- Comment #2 from Emmanuel Le Trong ---
Ok I got this new snippet showing what is very probably the same bug, although
the diagnostic message is not the same at all. (And quite frankly I don't
understand it.)
$ cat bug_5.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86952
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84072
Bug 84072 depends on bug 86952, which changed state.
Bug 86952 Summary: Avoid jump table for switch statement with
-mindirect-branch=thunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86952
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86952
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
Reopened with new info.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89541
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89546
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
When get_tail is esra optimized the old way, main is:
int n1$tail$head$payload;
struct type D.9885;
struct tuple D.9880;
struct type D.9879;
struct type D.9878;
struct type D.9875;
[local coun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89548
Bug ID: 89548
Summary: reinterpret_cast treats xvalue as prvalue
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89545
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 45866
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45866&action=edit
An psABI patch
How about this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87234
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89545
--- Comment #2 from Michael Matz ---
I think we should say something about the addresses of stack slots individual
overaligned arguments as well (i.e. that the slot itself will also be aligned
accordingly), not just for the overall effect.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89546
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The gimple dumps aren't exactly readable with so many different tuple/type etc.
types, where it is unclear what exact offset is something being stored at.
That said, in cplxlower1 I still see a possibility to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89547
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89546
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89517
--- Comment #1 from Tamar Christina ---
Author: tnfchris
Date: Fri Mar 1 13:34:14 2019
New Revision: 269309
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269309&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
AArch64: Make every option in options.def one line
Due to config.gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58142
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86979
--- Comment #12 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> Any progress on this?
I know what happens but am not fully sure as of why. The sp register should not
be available for the problematic move, so I'm figuri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89547
--- Comment #2 from maqsood3525 at live dot com ---
Hi ,
pardon me for the my tardinees , i should have mentioned the gcc version that
is gcc (Ubuntu 7.3.0-27ubuntu1~18.04) 7.3.0
the -flto output is attached.
Thanks
Haroon
___
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89545
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
It probably implements what we do but changing 32 to 1024*1024 shows that we
(possibly up to MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT) align parameters to arbitrarily high
values. Maybe we should cap that to some value (but mak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89545
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #2)
> I think we should say something about the addresses of stack slots
> individual overaligned arguments as well (i.e. that the slot itself will
> also be aligned
> accordi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89545
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> It probably implements what we do but changing 32 to 1024*1024 shows that we
> (possibly up to MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT) align parameters to arbitrarily high
X86 backend c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89544
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
An alternative way of fixing this might be if the backend could somehow control
DECL_ARG_TYPE for the parameter, to set it to a variant without the additional
alignment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89517
--- Comment #2 from Tamar Christina ---
Author: tnfchris
Date: Fri Mar 1 14:07:38 2019
New Revision: 269313
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269313&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
AArch64: Make every option in options.def one line (GCC-8).
Due to c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89517
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89491
--- Comment #5 from Dávid Bolvanský ---
Let's take the original example with small modification:
int square(int x) { return x*x; }
int add(int x) { return x + x; }
typedef int (*p)(int);
static const p arr[4] = {square, add};
int test(int x) {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89545
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45866|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89513
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 1 14:20:03 2019
New Revision: 269314
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269314&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Implement P1002R1, Try-catch blocks in constexpr functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 89513, which changed state.
Bug 89513 Summary: constexpr functions with function try block shouldn't be
accepted at least with -pedantic in -std=c++{11,14,17} modes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89513
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89513
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89545
--- Comment #7 from Michael Matz ---
What about this variant of the second part?
diff --git a/x86-64-ABI/low-level-sys-info.tex
b/x86-64-ABI/low-level-sys-info.tex
index 66270b9..93b5e95 100644
--- a/x86-64-ABI/low-level-sys-info.tex
+++ b/x86-6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89051
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
@Martin:
I've noticed that these tests has a suspicious construct:
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/flexary16.C:// { dg-options "-Wpedantic
-Wno-error=pedantic" }
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/flexary18.C:// { dg-additio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86979
--- Comment #13 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
So now I understand, finally. We move up an sp decrement and are supposed to
check that sp is available on the paths that are not touched by the move. There
are several successors of the move target blo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89545
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45868|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89539
--- Comment #6 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Yep, fixed, thanks for the overnight reaction^^. (and next time I think I have
the guts to mark it as 'bootstrap' right from the beginning)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89545
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #7)
> What about this variant of the second part?
>
Hi Michael,
I moved x86 psABI repo to
https://gitlab.com/x86-psABIs
Would you like to be co-owners?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89545
--- Comment #10 from Michael Matz ---
Ah, I missed that. Yeah, I'd like to be co-owner.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89545
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #10)
> Ah, I missed that. Yeah, I'd like to be co-owner.
Please send me your gitlab account name.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89545
--- Comment #12 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11)
> (In reply to Michael Matz from comment #10)
> > Ah, I missed that. Yeah, I'd like to be co-owner.
>
> Please send me your gitlab account name.
Err, right, that prob
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35362
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86952
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #15 from Martin Lišk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89549
Bug ID: 89549
Summary: -Wmisleading-indentation is disabled from this point
onwards, since column-tracking was disabled due to the
size of the code/headers
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89549
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2019-3-1
Known to work|
1 - 100 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
