https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93196
Bug ID: 93196
Summary: GCC compiles c code, provides no executable output
with option -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93197
Bug ID: 93197
Summary: -fpatchable-function-entries :
__patchable_function_entries does not survive under
--gc-sections
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93196
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Double check that your -O2 is a capitalized O. My bet it is not and really you
are producing a file called 2 instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93185
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
> When will the move to git take place?
Roughly in 2 weeks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93185
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I thought it is this Saturday/Sunday.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93198
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93198
Bug ID: 93198
Summary: [10 regression] -Werror=maybe-uninitialized in
i386-expand.c (ix86_expand_builtin)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93199
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93199
Bug ID: 93199
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] Compile time hog in sink_clobbers
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93188
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Wed Jan 8 09:29:02 2020
New Revision: 279993
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279993&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
arm: Fix rmprofile multilibs when architecture includes +mp or +sec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92055
--- Comment #13 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Jan 8 09:31:07 2020
New Revision: 279994
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279994&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Implement 64-bit double functions.
gcc/
PR target/92055
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93188
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10-regression] a-profile |[9 regression] a-profile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93196
--- Comment #2 from xiehongbiao ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Double check that your -O2 is a capitalized O. My bet it is not and really
> you are producing a file called 2 instead.
Thanks for the reply Andrew. I'm sure that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93199
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93182
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Jan 8 09:41:59 2020
New Revision: 279995
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279995&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Add -nodevicespecs option for avr.
PR target/93182
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93047
--- Comment #3 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
On P9, "gcc $GCC_SRC/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/stackalign/builtin-return-1.c
-O3 -frename-registers -o ./builtin-return-1.exe" could reproduce this issue
without -fpic.
On P8, to reproduce this issue, -fpic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93182
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Jan 8 09:46:07 2020
New Revision: 279996
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279996&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from 2020-01-08 trunk r279995.
Add -nodevicespe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93199
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 47608
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47608&action=edit
cleanup patch
Testing this first, reliably catching secondary opportunities and
micro-optimizing virtual opera
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93182
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Jan 8 09:52:03 2020
New Revision: 279997
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279997&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from 2020-01-08 trunk r279995.
Add -nodevic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93189
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93198
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93196
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93196
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93182
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.4 |9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93182
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93199
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The 4.7 behavior started with r181332. Then in r182283 the sink_clobbers
quadratic behavior has been added. And finally r246314 got rid of the eat all
memory and compile time during into ssa pass and only h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93199
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
BTW, if we want to put the testcase into the testsuite, maybe we need to tune
the exact resx/CLOBBER count, so that even after the fix it doesn't take way
too long, but on the other side with unfixed compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93047
--- Comment #4 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
Checking dumps, some info like below:
Before rnreg, there are insns:
127: call [`foo'] argc 0
242: %0:DI=%31:DI+0x220
128: [%31:DI+0x200]=%3:DI
359: %2:TI=%2:TI<-<0x40
449: %3:DI=%0:DI
360: [%3:DI]=%2:TI<-<0x40
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93199
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As for the patch, I wonder if internal resx doesn't occur also without the
clobbers to move or in places where sink_clobbers would give up. So, perhaps
add a dry_run bool to sink_clobbers and in the first lo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93196
--- Comment #4 from xiehongbiao ---
Created attachment 47609
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47609&action=edit
O2 NG
add -v in compile command.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93196
--- Comment #5 from xiehongbiao ---
Created attachment 47610
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47610&action=edit
O1 Good
Add -v in compile command
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93196
--- Comment #6 from xiehongbiao ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> (In reply to xiehongbiao from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > > Double check that your -O2 is a capitalized O. My bet it is not and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93196
--- Comment #7 from xiehongbiao ---
Created attachment 47611
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47611&action=edit
log comparation snapshot
The above 2 logs comparation snapshot.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93196
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you also add -Wl,-v ; this will cause collect2 to print it runs?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93199
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93199
>
> --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> As for the patch, I wonder if internal resx d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48303
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81806
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Again, GCC's purpose is not to help people in programming contests.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93200
Bug ID: 93200
Summary: [10 Regression] spurious -Wstringop-overflow due to
assignment vectorization to multiple members
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93200
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Created attachment 47612
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47612&action=edit
Translation unit to reproduce the warning.
Attached is a cjdns-v20.4 translation unit that reproduces the warnin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93200
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93196
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Can you please attach output for strace -f -s512 of the problematic execution?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91800
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markeggleston at gcc do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93201
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93201
Bug ID: 93201
Summary: std::filesystem::remove_all fails to remove large
files
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92870
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92885
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92893
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92903
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
The same is likely true for any unary operation, I think we're not aggressively
trying to compute the "reverse" for OP(x) == CST computes anywhere.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92906
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93185
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I thought it is this Saturday/Sunday.
Yes, I intend to do the conversion this weekend.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92925
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93199
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 8 12:49:14 2020
New Revision: 28
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=28&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-08 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/93199
c/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92926
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92930
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92606
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92936
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
In full generality it would require inspecting all possible program paths
(and then decide which ones are "impossible" to take). We're not doing that.
Still we should have n = [3, 5] and yes, no info for p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92938
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to jcmvbkbc from comment #5)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> > I DON'T think it is a GCC issue. The code is broken.
>
> Even if I remove all attributes from this function I see thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93134
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slyfox at inbox dot ru
--- Comment #9 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92945
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92906
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92955
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93201
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This shows the bug on trunk, which only affects the quality of error reporting
when an error occurs:
#include
#include
using std::filesystem::path;
using std::filesystem::perms;
int main(int argc, char
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93193
--- Comment #2 from Igor S Gerasimov ---
Is it possible to add warnings if /* is in commented line?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92956
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |10.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93143
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92926
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92957
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||49774
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92963
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93143
--- Comment #5 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> *** Bug 92926 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I sent a patch fixing this a
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-12/msg00920.html
The only question
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92979
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Ideally bswap would be less ad-hoc but work as a propagator with a lattice of
symbolic values.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93185
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 47613
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47613&action=edit
Github git reference
I like what Github does. You can paste a git hash in a text, it's later
shortened and one c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93143
--- Comment #6 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to bin cheng from comment #5)
> (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> > *** Bug 92926 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
>
> I sent a patch fixing this a
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92989
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Summary|The mips-mti-li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92997
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64*-linux-gnu arm|powerpc64*-linux-gnu arm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92997
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92997
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 8 14:07:55 2020
New Revision: 280003
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=280003&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2020-01-08 Richard Biener
PR testsuite/92997
* gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93002
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Fixed on trunk?
countdown_i_used:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
movl$999, %eax
.p2align 4,,10
.p2align 3
.L2:
movl%eax, sink(%rip)
subl$1, %eax
jn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93007
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93010
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #30 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Toni Neubert from comment #28)
> I have another test case which fails. (Maybe more..., I am sorry).
No need to be sorry, your input is very valuable.
Anyway, for the #c28 testcase (using
struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93182
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Jan 8 14:28:56 2020
New Revision: 280005
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=280005&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/93182
* doc/invoke.texi (AVR Options) <-nodevic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93199
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 8 14:30:44 2020
New Revision: 280006
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=280006&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2020-01-08 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/93199
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93014
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93017
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93019
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I think this is known for the driver and we're too lazy to fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93033
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93037
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93039
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89096
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93177
--- Comment #2 from Matt Emmerton ---
This appears to have packaging complications by vendors as well :(
On powerpc-ibm-aix7.1.0.0 this doesn't get installed.
On ppc64le-redhat-linux it does.
However, both of these cases would benefit from some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93039
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
> The question is for which CPUs is it actually faster to use SSE?
In the context of chains where the source and the destination need to be SSE
registers, pretty much all CPUs? Inter-unit moves typically
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88355
--- Comment #3 from Emmanuel Le Trong ---
This bug has disappeared, both tests above compile with version 10.0.0
20200108.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93002
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The originally reported issue is fixed.
Though, the following testcase shows we could do better:
void foo (void);
void bar (unsigned);
unsigned f1 (unsigned x) { if (--x == -1U) foo (); return x; }
unsigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93174
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 8 15:58:20 2020
New Revision: 280011
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=280011&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/93174
* config/i386/i386.md (addcarry_0): Use no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93187
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 8 15:59:20 2020
New Revision: 280012
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=280012&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/93187
* config/i386/i386.md (*stack_protect_set_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92906
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93174
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93187
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93039
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On January 8, 2020 4:34:40 PM GMT+01:00, "amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93039
>
>--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
>> The question is f
1 - 100 of 155 matches
Mail list logo
