https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90271
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On April 29, 2019 9:23:21 PM GMT+02:00, "eyalroz at technion dot ac.il"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90271
>
>--- Comment #8 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
>(In reply to rguent..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89770
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90273
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #23)
> > what are the rules of which ones we can remove? Can we always just keep the
> last? What about location differences? What about possibly interleaving
> D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90288
Bug ID: 90288
Summary: -g{no,}as-locview-support missing the leading dash in
the documentation
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: document
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90273
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 30 07:40:06 2019
New Revision: 270674
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270674&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/90273
* tree-ssa-dce.c (eliminate_un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90271
--- Comment #10 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #9)
> You'd have to experiment with different GCC versions, but yes.
I was hoping for a more concrete suggestion (which works with multiple GCC
versions)...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90279
Jaydeep Chauhan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jaydeepchauhan1494 at gmail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89325
Agner Fog changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||agner at agner dot org
--- Comment #5 from A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90286
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
On Fedora the Arduino IDE uses GCC 7.4, so it's possible to build a newer one.
Whoever you got your Arduino toolchain from needs to update it and provide you
a newer one. That's not the responsibility of th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90274
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Apr 30 08:33:29 2019
New Revision: 270675
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270675&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Wrap a string with _ for translation (PR translation/90274).
2019-04-30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90258
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Apr 30 08:35:28 2019
New Revision: 270676
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270676&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Subject: Backport r270622
2019-04-30 Martin Liska
Backport fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90258
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86964
--- Comment #11 from Thomas De Schampheleire ---
It seems the necessary patch is applied now, are these the only changes
The target milestone is set 7.5. Do you have any rough idea when that would be
released?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90274
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Apr 30 08:51:23 2019
New Revision: 270677
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270677&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Subject: Backport r270675
2019-04-30 Martin Liska
Backport fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90274
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89475
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 30 09:07:28 2019
New Revision: 270680
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270680&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/89475
* tree-ssa-ccp.c (evaluate_stmt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37369
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Tue Apr 30 09:25:31 2019
New Revision: 270683
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270683&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/90075 Prefer bsl/bit/bif for copysignf. (backport GCC-8)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90075
--- Comment #7 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Tue Apr 30 09:25:31 2019
New Revision: 270683
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270683&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/90075 Prefer bsl/bit/bif for copysignf. (backport GCC-8)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90140
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90075
--- Comment #8 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Tue Apr 30 09:31:04 2019
New Revision: 270684
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270684&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/90075 Prefer bsl/bit/bif for copysignf. (backport GCC-7)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37369
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Tue Apr 30 09:31:04 2019
New Revision: 270684
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270684&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/90075 Prefer bsl/bit/bif for copysignf. (backport GCC-7)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90075
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90218
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90289
Bug ID: 90289
Summary: an unnecessary relocation record
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90290
Bug ID: 90290
Summary: -std=f2008 should reject non-constant stop and error
stop codes
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90290
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90291
Bug ID: 90291
Summary: [7/8 Regression] Inline namespace erroneously extends
another namespace
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90263
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87833
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89721
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
No, it needs backports. Thanks for reminding me!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65342
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86538
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86538
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Tue Apr 30 11:22:11 2019
New Revision: 270686
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270686&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[Patch AArch64] Add __ARM_FEATURE_ATOMICS
This keeps coming up r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86538
--- Comment #5 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Tue Apr 30 12:02:30 2019
New Revision: 270689
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270689&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[Patch AArch64] Add __ARM_FEATURE_ATOMICS
This keeps coming u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #84 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 30 12:07:27 2019
New Revision: 270690
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270690&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/89093
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_proce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89475
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90263
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46262|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90283
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90291
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90283
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46267
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46267&action=edit
perf annotate - good - r260347
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90291
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Testcase without typos:
inline namespace A
{
inline namespace B // (1)
{
void foo() {}
}
}
inline namespace B // (2)
{
inline namespace A
{
void foo() {}
}
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90283
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90288
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90288
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Apr 30 13:31:22 2019
New Revision: 270692
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270692&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add missing dash for 2 options in documentation (PR debug/90288).
2019-04
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90288
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90284
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61761
Jan van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||j.v.dijk at tue dot nl
--- Comment #2 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90283
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> The perf comes from an Intel Skylake server machine.
>
> The number of fma is very similar:
> grep fma bad.report.txt | wc -l
> 126
> grep fma good
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90279
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90273
--- Comment #26 from Alexandre Oliva ---
I saw the #c11 patch in gcc-patches, and it seemed to have been posted FTR and
installed. It looked good, so I didn't comment on it.
I agree about the effects of #c16, though I begin to get a feeling tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61761
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jan van Dijk from comment #2)
> Is it not perfectly fine that your patch works only for _Tp equal to float,
> double or long double? Anything else is unspecified per 24.5(2). Does
> libstdc++ a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61761
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86538
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Tue Apr 30 14:57:50 2019
New Revision: 270702
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270702&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[Patch AArch64] Add __ARM_FEATURE_ATOMICS
This keeps coming up
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90292
Bug ID: 90292
Summary: GCC Fails to hoist loop invariant in nested loops
Product: gcc
Version: tree-ssa
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90292
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90289
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90273
--- Comment #27 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On April 30, 2019 4:27:25 PM GMT+02:00, "aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90273
>
>--- Comment #26 from Alexandre Oliva ---
>I saw the #c11 patch i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61761
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think your patch as as good as anything else we'll come up with, apart from
using numeric_limits::infinity() instead of INFINITY. Anybody who wants to
use std::proj with types other than float, double and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90291
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
I think I'm going to have to consult core ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87163
--- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner ---
This doesn't fail for me using a native build. Martin, can you recheck to see
if this is now fixed? There have been some changes in this area and I do see
that pattern in my dump file with no ICE:
(insn 6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90293
Bug ID: 90293
Summary: New function attribute: expect_return
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90293
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
One more case: sometimes it may be more handy to specify what will *not* be
usually returned, e.g. special invalid value. For such cases another attribute
would be needed:
__attribute__((expect_not_return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90273
--- Comment #28 from Jan Hubicka ---
> The recent regression is we no longer throw them away plentiful during CFG
> cleanup and now they pile up during inlining.
>
> I agree full DCE with liveness will be expensive for usually little gain. Not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61761
--- Comment #5 from Jan van Dijk ---
Does the usage of numeric_limits<_Tp> in complex work well for user-defined
_Tp?
For complex, at present MyType can be required to be constructible from
INFINITY to make proj work. Wouldn't using numeric_limi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61761
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jan van Dijk from comment #5)
> Does the usage of numeric_limits<_Tp> in complex work well for user-defined
> _Tp?
We can assume it does.
> For complex, at present MyType can be required to b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90293
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82636
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #86 from Tamar Christina ---
for aarch64-none-linux-gnu. I am still building the toolchain to take a look so
not able to give more detail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #87 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 30 16:30:44 2019
New Revision: 270705
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270705&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/89093
* gcc.target/aarch64/return_address_sign_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90292
--- Comment #2 from Giuliano Belinassi ---
Just for the sake of completeness, this issue is not addressed by just changing
the iterators to 'int'. However, it is in fact solved by changing the iterators
to 'unsigned long', 'long', or doing a cast
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90290
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Henlich ---
The road to standards non-compliance hell is paved with very minor offenses...
;-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90292
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
When changing iterators to 'int', you also need to change n to int as well,
otherwise in 'n*(i) + (j)', i and j are promoted to unsigned anyway.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90291
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |SUSPENDED
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90294
Bug ID: 90294
Summary: Compare with NaN failing
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90294
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90295
Bug ID: 90295
Summary: Please define ~exception_ptr inline
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90294
--- Comment #2 from Fred Krogh ---
Created attachment 46268
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46268&action=edit
gfortran -g -o testi testi.f90 gives the error below
Look at r > 0 NaN
Note: The following floatin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89770
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Fixed.
So it is. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90294
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 05:28:18PM +, siteg at mathalacarte dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90294
>
> --- Comment #2 from Fred Krogh ---
> Created attachment 46268
> --> ht
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90290
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P5 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90294
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90294
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 05:54:33PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90294
>
> Dominique d'Humieres changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90294
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:15:38AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 05:54:33PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90294
> >
> > Dominiqu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90294
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:17:38AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
>
> BTW, one is suppose to be able to control this behavior in the
> code itself.
>
> stop, .false.
> stop, quiet=.false.
>
> should inhibit the w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90127
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90294
--- Comment #8 from Fred Krogh ---
My apologies for posting this. In my original code the program just quit at
the point of the test. I thought I had more or less reproduced this in a small
program. Clearly that is not the case. My code has c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90291
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Igor, was this distilled from real code? what was the intent of such an
organization?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88074
--- Comment #34 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 30 20:28:56 2019
New Revision: 270712
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270712&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-02-20 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89415
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 30 20:28:56 2019
New Revision: 270712
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270712&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-02-20 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89412
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 30 20:30:27 2019
New Revision: 270714
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270714&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-02-20 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89091
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 30 20:29:44 2019
New Revision: 270713
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270713&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-02-20 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89405
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 30 20:31:26 2019
New Revision: 270715
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270715&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-02-20 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89403
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 30 20:32:14 2019
New Revision: 270716
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270716&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-02-20 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89520
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 30 20:33:24 2019
New Revision: 270717
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270717&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-02-28 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89521
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 30 20:34:49 2019
New Revision: 270718
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270718&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-02-28 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89590
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 30 20:36:17 2019
New Revision: 270719
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270719&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-03-05 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89587
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 30 20:37:12 2019
New Revision: 270720
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270720&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-03-05 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87148
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 30 20:38:01 2019
New Revision: 270721
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270721&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-03-06 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82075
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 30 20:38:32 2019
New Revision: 270722
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270722&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-03-08 Jakub Jelinek
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
