https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93709
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93714
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93713
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93715
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93716
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93717
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93717
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93717
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Guenther :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8ea884b85e338d09b14e6a54043c53ae0c1b1fe9
commit r10-6613-g8ea884b85e338d09b14e6a54043c53ae0c1b1fe9
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93721
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Store merging and bswap should be merged - there's PRs for bswap not working
for "stores" (because those are not seeds it works from). And bswap would
need to be enhanced to detect more permutation patterns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93726
Bug ID: 93726
Summary: [GCOV] unexecuted functions lead to incorrect code
coverage when it calls a function with a variable
argument
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93388
--- Comment #11 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #9)
> I'll report back with anything else I find.
154 ice left. They are all in get_lvalue_1. They
are are duplicates of these three:
./c-c++-common/pr51628-30.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93727
Bug ID: 93727
Summary: Fortran 2018: EX edit descriptor
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93728
Bug ID: 93728
Summary: First half of warning message suppressed because code
pointed to is in system header
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93582
--- Comment #25 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8aba425f4ebc5e2c054776d3cdddf13f7c1918f8
commit r10-6614-g8aba425f4ebc5e2c054776d3cdddf13f7c1918f8
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93729
Bug ID: 93729
Summary: [concepts] binding bit-field to lvalue reference in
requires expression should be SFINAE
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #33 from Thomas Henlich ---
Created attachment 47834
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47834&action=edit
Proposed fix for test
Proposed test for verifying the correct output after finishing this bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91921
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||loximann at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93728
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93696
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ae2b8ede40a81a83f50d1e705972bc46fafd4ce5
commit r10-6617-gae2b8ede40a81a83f50d1e705972bc46fafd4ce5
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93722
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
But, x86 doesn't have 128bit rotate.
For:
void f0 (unsigned int *a)
{
unsigned long t0 = ((unsigned long *)a)[0];
unsigned long t1 = t0 >> sizeof(unsigned int)*8;
unsigned long t2 = t0 << sizeof(unsigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93674
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> I can't reproduce this with GCC 9, only 8.
Sorry, I was using -fsanitize=undefined, which prevented the miscompilation for
gcc 9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93388
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93093
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93481
Frederik Harwath changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93093
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Jason, do you think the current spec is clear enough on when the consteval
evaluation of default arguments ought to happen (and does our implementation
match that), or does it need clarification?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93730
Bug ID: 93730
Summary: [Bug] internal compiler error: in make_decl_rtl, at
varasm.c:1375
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93093
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
This is https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/167
In CWG today we decided that since this is all compiler magic anyway, we can be
a bit more magical to get around this problematic interaction with con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93667
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
It is easy to prevent the ICE with the following, which prevents total
scalarization from happening. However, if someone marked a field with
such an attribute, the encompassing structure perhaps should be
op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93731
Bug ID: 93731
Summary: [10 regression] asan tests cause kernel panic on
Darwin 11
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93731
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93715
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93730
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93730
--- Comment #2 from Akhilesh Kumar ---
Working on Arm architecture.
I am trying to reproduce the same with sample test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93731
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So you could just disable asan and keep ubsan (set ASAN_SUPPORTED=no in
libsanitizer/configure.tgt for a particular darwin OS version, and if it is
32-bit only, also test x$ac_cv_sizeof_void_p = x4 ?
Of cours
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93639
--- Comment #4 from raphael grimm ---
Created attachment 47835
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47835&action=edit
reduced to 11 lines and no includes
http://coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/be3bbfdf6a59b45e
on g++ (GCC) 9.2.0
o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93732
Bug ID: 93732
Summary: [10 Regression] Incorrect symbol type when activating
LTO a compile step
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93027
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93731
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> So you could just disable asan and keep ubsan (set ASAN_SUPPORTED=no in
> libsanitizer/configure.tgt for a particular darwin OS version, and if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93732
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93609
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||laurent.stacul at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93722
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93576
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #168 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2020-02-13 12:24 a.m., peter.bisroev at groundlabs dot com wrote:
> Tonight I have been trying to find a test case where this problem can be
> reproduced with gcc and then compiled with aCC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93733
Bug ID: 93733
Summary: F2008: G0.d output editing for
integer/logical/character data
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93714
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markeggleston at gcc do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93656
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1d69147af203d4dcd2270429f90c93f1a37ddfff
commit r10-6622-g1d69147af203d4dcd2270429f90c93f1a37ddfff
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Thu Feb 13 05:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93734
Bug ID: 93734
Summary: Invalid code generated with -O2 -march=haswell
-ftree-vectorize
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93735
Bug ID: 93735
Summary: [GCOV] incorrect coverage for calling variable
arguments function with incremental expression in its
parameter list
Product: gcc
Version: 9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93734
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93734
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93734
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93705
Kevin Hartman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93736
Bug ID: 93736
Summary: Add .f18 and .F18 file suffixes
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93736
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=93643
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93678
--- Comment #2 from Luis Kornblueh ---
Created attachment 47838
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47838&action=edit
New testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93678
--- Comment #3 from Luis Kornblueh ---
Thanks @kargl for simplifing my still very long case. However, a bug has been
introduced in this version.
The nested transfers cannot be split into two as the result of the first
transfer is not a character
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93734
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93713
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93736
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Henlich ---
I don't know why the Fortran compiler doesn't treat all files as free-form
Fortran source files, unless they have a known extension indicating otherwise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
Peter Bisroev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47829|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93678
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 03:46:17PM +, mail.luis at web dot de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93678
>
> --- Comment #3 from Luis Kornblueh ---
> Thanks @kargl for simplifing my still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93731
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
These systems are EOL so we can't expect any fixes to the systems themselves.
The question is "is the latest imported as an version even supposed to support
10.7"?
I have a patch to unsupport the sanitiser fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93737
Bug ID: 93737
Summary: inline memmove for insertion into small arrays
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93737
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93736
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 04:40:08PM +, thenlich at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93736
>
> --- Comment #2 from Thomas Henlich ---
> I don't know why the Fortran comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93573
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93572
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93736
Thomas Henlich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Henlich
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
Peter Bisroev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47839|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #171 from Peter Bisroev ---
Comment on attachment 47839
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47839
GCC 4.9.4 gimple-expr.c dump (aCC)
Obsoleted by attachment 47840 as in this attachment inlining with aCC was not
fully
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #172 from Peter Bisroev ---
Hi Dave,
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #168)
> There seems to be something broken regarding stub insertion for calls to
> weak functions. Are we
> using the correct branch form for calls to weak?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93736
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 05:59:18PM +, thenlich at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #4 from Thomas Henlich ---
> Additionally, we could also imply -std=f2018 with the .f18/.F18 suffix. That
> would m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #173 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2020-02-13 1:11 p.m., peter.bisroev at groundlabs dot com wrote:
> If I try to compare this to aCC dump in attachment 47840, I do not see any
> calls to weak. Equivalent section to the above
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93738
Bug ID: 93738
Summary: [8/9 regression] test case
gcc.target/powerpc/20050603-3.c fails
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93738
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93576
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bacdd5e978dad84e9c547b0d5c7fed14b8d75157
commit r10-6625-gbacdd5e978dad84e9c547b0d5c7fed14b8d75157
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92572
--- Comment #7 from Walt Karas ---
I see this problem running in a Docker container on a MacBook. When I try it
on the Mac (clang, Darwin kernel), the output is 2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68061
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93228
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90515
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93731
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #3)
> These systems are EOL so we can't expect any fixes to the systems themselves.
>
> The question is "is the latest imported as an version even supposed to
> support
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90262
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64-linux-gnu
Component|mid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93737
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Sdee the thread starting at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-09/msg01618.html
Continued at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-10/msg00277.html
This infastructure patch was committed October 2,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93737
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
I was thinking for small N, the middle-end could make it work by emitting
copies of the sequences using MEM_REFs, along these lines:
char _2[N - 2];
_2 = MEM [(char * {ref-all})&a + 1];
MEM [(char * {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93643
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93643
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:abc79c6498a99e9c39e6056f432796c6dde3a887
commit r10-6628-gabc79c6498a99e9c39e6056f432796c6dde3a887
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91476
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:abc79c6498a99e9c39e6056f432796c6dde3a887
commit r10-6628-gabc79c6498a99e9c39e6056f432796c6dde3a887
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93713
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9a0c4f5b373e236cb4af5491f50862d41fd8775a
commit r10-6629-g9a0c4f5b373e236cb4af5491f50862d41fd8775a
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93713
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #18 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Created attachment 47841
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47841&action=edit
Patch to treat sign_extend as is_just_move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #19 from Segher Boessenkool ---
With that above patch, I get (T0 is original, T2 is with patch, these are
file sizes of a Linux build, mostly defconfig):
T0T2
alpha 6049096 100.020%
arc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #20 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #18)
> Created attachment 47841 [details]
> Patch to treat sign_extend as is_just_move
Do you think zero_extend should maybe be treated as such too? What about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #21 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #20)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #18)
> > Created attachment 47841 [details]
> > Patch to treat sign_extend as is_just_move
>
> Do you think z
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #174 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2020-02-13 2:44 p.m., dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> The first thing to note is aCC doesn't use weak. Instead, it uses COMDAT
> sections. Probably, HP ld does support
> weak but it's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93402
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3b2fbe3e723b20ea9089e5f45c55b79feb37085b
commit r9-8213-g3b2fbe3e723b20ea9089e5f45c55b79feb37085b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93418
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:764e831291a2e510978ca7be0bffb55589a5a0b6
commit r9-8214-g764e831291a2e510978ca7be0bffb55589a5a0b6
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93463
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:244f4b8c2823531a1e479a3773272af539dda258
commit r9-8215-g244f4b8c2823531a1e479a3773272af539dda258
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91118
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4b124e3c9c35121969cc23d0aea4bcb2c406fd21
commit r9-8216-g4b124e3c9c35121969cc23d0aea4bcb2c406fd21
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93505
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:329475795c6eeaa2b122672091c9119b9d6c5564
commit r9-8217-g329475795c6eeaa2b122672091c9119b9d6c5564
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Da
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
