https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89833
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89829
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89829
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Serge Belyshev from comment #2)
> On the other hand, benchmarking shows that better training brings no
> advantage. Or rather, slight measurable regression is apparent:
>
> option| t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89833
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. I think this is only a regression against recent trunk. It's a new C++2a
feature which isn't supported in any released version.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85537
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
The issue seems to be that the indirect call doesn't set up the static
chain and this is because appearantly bar_ptr has static storage duration:
foo ()
{
static voidD.27 (*) (void) bar_ptrD.3873 = bar_i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85537
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Probably missed handling in add_init_expr_to_sym which needs to special case
procedure-pointers to nested functions?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89834
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89841
Bug ID: 89841
Summary: improper descriptor information passed to C
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89834
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019, ro at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89834
>
> Rainer Orth changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89463
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Mar 27 09:31:53 2019
New Revision: 269961
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269961&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-27 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/89463
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89463
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89842
Bug ID: 89842
Summary: CFI_allocate fails to allocate object
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84201
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89843
Bug ID: 89843
Summary: CFI_section delivers incorrect result descriptor
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89844
Bug ID: 89844
Summary: CFI_setpointer produces wrong descriptor
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89845
Bug ID: 89845
Summary: Consider improving division and modulo by constant if
highpart multiply is cheap
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85537
--- Comment #15 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> And the FE indeed accepts
>
> procedure(ibar), pointer, save :: bar_ptr => bar_impl
>
> but it should probably reject that.
Indeed this is o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89846
Bug ID: 89846
Summary: CFI_select_part creates incorrect descriptor
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89847
Bug ID: 89847
Summary: Simplify subexpressions of % constant
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85537
--- Comment #16 from Tiziano Müller ---
can confirm, changing the reproducer to
procedure(ibar), pointer :: bar_ptr => null()
bar_ptr => bar_impl
makes it generate valid code with the warning
Warning: trampoline generated for neste
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84201
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Yeah, it should even add _extra_ precision because it does less rounding steps.
I wonder what the difference in frequency(ifreq,ipower) is when comparing
vectorization vs. non-vectorization.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85537
--- Comment #17 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tiziano Müller from comment #16)
> can confirm, changing the reproducer to
>
> procedure(ibar), pointer :: bar_ptr => null()
> bar_ptr => bar_impl
>
> makes it generate valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85537
--- Comment #18 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> As said, the testcase is invalid if it needs SAVE since that prolongs
> lifetime of the static chain over the duration of the contained function.
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89499
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Started to ICE with r230072, before that it has been rejected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47488
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2011-01-27 10:56:51 |2019-3-27
--- Comment #13 from Jonatha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89499
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Looking more closely, the thing is that this stuff (e.g. the .UNIQUE calls)
require the execute_oacc_device_lower pass to transform it or clean it up.
But that pass starts with:
tree attrs = oacc_get_fn_at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85537
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |accepts-invalid
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84101
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|
-linux-gnu-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/i686-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-269960-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-i686
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.1 20190327 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89816
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed or further work will be done on this? If the latter, does it need to be
covered by two PRs?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89313
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84101
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Just looking at what we feed combine:
(insn 9 8 15 2 (set (reg:V2DI 89)
(vec_concat:V2DI (reg:DI 90 [ num ])
(reg:DI 92))) "t.c":9:12 4182 {vec_concatv2di}
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89816
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89271
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84101
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14)
> Just looking at what we feed combine:
>
> (insn 9 8 15 2 (set (reg:V2DI 89)
> (vec_concat:V2DI (reg:DI 90 [ num ])
> (reg:DI 92))) "t.c":9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89827
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89825
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84101
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14)
> > Just looking at what we feed combine:
> >
> > (insn 9 8 15 2 (set (reg:V2DI 89)
> > (vec_concat:V2DI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84101
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
Oh, it's CSE forwarding the subreg already.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89849
Bug ID: 89849
Summary: Worse code at O3 because of slp
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85537
--- Comment #20 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #18)
> C1220(R1217) The procedure-name shall be the name of a nonelemental external
> or module procedure, or a specific intrinsic function listed in 13.6 and not
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89834
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84101
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
The following "fixes"
struct ciao { long a; long b; };
struct ciao square(int num) {
struct ciao beta;
beta.a = num;
beta.b = num*num;
return beta;
}
producing wrong code though, somehow f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84101
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89849
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87829
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84101
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener ---
Ah.
Index: gcc/expr.c
===
--- gcc/expr.c (revision 269960)
+++ gcc/expr.c (working copy)
@@ -7018,7 +7018,11 @@ store_field (rtx target, po
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89832
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85537
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88247
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Wed Mar 27 12:51:43 2019
New Revision: 269962
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269962&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-27 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/88247
* expr.c (is_sub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89693
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
True. the node that IPA-CP clones is itself a former thunk, expanded
at symbol_table::finalize_compilation_unit time (which I admit is
something I did not anticipate), all the thunk information is copied
to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84101
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener ---
Needs more defensiveness. Also the safe_from_p change might not be safe
in case we ever TER sth like
_1 = BIT_FIELD_REF;
_2 = BIT_FIELD_REF;
vector = { _2, _1 };
which we do...
typedef double v2df __
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89832
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
I propose a patch to upstream:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D59876
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84101
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
But we can side-step this issue with changing the way expand_constructor
works:
Index: gcc/expr.c
===
--- gcc/expr.c (revision 269963)
+++ g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89271
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89499
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89832
--- Comment #3 from Diane Meirowitz ---
Thank you for fixing this so quickly! This is a huge improvement.
Here are some suggestions to make it even better for those without a lot of
knowledge of ASAn. I think this will be the case for some peopl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89850
Bug ID: 89850
Summary: long compile times with -fsanitize=undefined and
-Wduplicated-branches
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89841
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89842
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89843
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89844
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89846
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86932
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Mar 27 14:27:00 2019
New Revision: 269965
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269965&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/86932 - missed SFINAE with empty pack.
The issue here was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86932
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] Empty |[8 Regression] Empty
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89421
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89851
Bug ID: 89851
Summary: [Regression] std::variant comparison operators violate
[variant.relops]
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89830
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89852
Bug ID: 89852
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89852
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose ---
Created attachment 46035
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46035&action=edit
preprocessed source
unreduced test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68771
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Vollmer ---
Using g++-7.4.0 I'm now seeing the following:
- Step 1) (the compilation with "-flto -fprofile-generate") still works,
including the visibility warnings mentioned in Comment #2, in particular
ld: warning: d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89852
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89852
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89767
--- Comment #10 from Steven Seeger ---
I can confirm that this fix corrects the issue that I've seen with gcc-3.0. I
built Gentoo's sys-devel/gcc-8.3.0 with Jakub's patch as a user patch and it
built clean, and I was able to build my codebase.
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89830
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 02:55:56PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
>
> AFAIU this PR reports two issues with no or little connection with REPEAT.
>
Yes, and we have already agreed to close this one bec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89853
Bug ID: 89853
Summary: Regression of 525.x264_r at -O2 (and generic tuning)
on AMD EPYC
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89854
Bug ID: 89854
Summary: diagnostic differences between misuse of "." and "->"
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89850
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68771
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Daniel Vollmer from comment #8)
> Using g++-7.4.0 I'm now seeing the following:
> - Step 1) (the compilation with "-flto -fprofile-generate") still works,
So - to be sure - this is LTO without "-g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89850
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Dup of 82952?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82952
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joerg.rich...@pdv-fs.de
--- Comment #7 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89850
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89826
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed Mar 27 16:18:06 2019
New Revision: 269967
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269967&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/87761
PR rtl-optimization/89826
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87761
--- Comment #20 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed Mar 27 16:18:06 2019
New Revision: 269967
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269967&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/87761
PR rtl-optimization/89826
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89854
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89826
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86525
Nikita Kniazev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nok.raven at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89855
Bug ID: 89855
Summary: Inconsistent global namespace overload sets from
#include
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68771
--- Comment #10 from Daniel Vollmer ---
Created attachment 46036
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46036&action=edit
Example triggering "This was likely caused by different translation units being
compiled with different visibi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68771
--- Comment #11 from Daniel Vollmer ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #9)
> (In reply to Daniel Vollmer from comment #8)
> > Using g++-7.4.0 I'm now seeing the following:
> > - Step 1) (the compilation with "-flto -fprofile-generate") sti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89313
--- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Wed Mar 27 16:59:15 2019
New Revision: 269969
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269969&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR rtl-optimization/89313
* function.c (matching_co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89830
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
Rather than create a new compiler option, it is possible to compile to an
assembler
file using -S, look for .ascii „bar/foo.f90\0“ and replace with a sed or perl
script
according to your specification (for ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68771
--- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Daniel Vollmer from comment #10)
> Created attachment 46036 [details]
> Example triggering "This was likely caused by different translation units
> being compiled with different visibility setting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89313
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78377
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> This kind of PRs is a nightmare when sorting the bug list.
What do you mean by "this kind of PR"? And what is your problem with it? Do you
have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78377
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89855
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I there is a related defect report against the c++ standard about this exact
issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89853
--- Comment #1 from Peter Bergner ---
Cut and paste error? The two data sets look the same to me...or am I missing
something?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89733
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89499
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
1 - 100 of 191 matches
Mail list logo
