https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101218
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101202
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cnsun at uwaterloo dot ca
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101229
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101219
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-06-28
Summary|ice in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101207
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Ah, so what happens is that we elide the load permutation that feeds the
plus reduction originally but then we vectorize the live operands of the
minus reduction as BIT_FIELD_REFs ending up extracting the w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] evrp |[11/12 Regression] evrp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101229
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101233
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101210
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91085
--- Comment #17 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Revised patch, matching __has_include(...):
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/573789.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101207
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 51067
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51067&action=edit
patch I am testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101207
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> Created attachment 51067 [details]
> patch I am testing
All of the tests now pass on aarch64-linux-gnu with this above patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101234
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101236
Bug ID: 101236
Summary: [12 Regression] bits/unique_ptr.h:658:48: error:
invalid use of incomplete type ‘class llvm::APFloat’
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101236
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Summary|[12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101210
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 51069
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51069&action=edit
gcc12-pr101210.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101210
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
You should Jakub likely use sanitize_flags_p rather than direct flag_sanitize?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101210
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It should match what the FE is doing, and it uses
if (TREE_CODE (stmt) == INTEGER_CST
&& TYPE_REF_P (TREE_TYPE (stmt))
&& (flag_sanitize & (SANITIZE_NULL | SANITIZE_ALIGNMENT))
&& !wtd->n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101235
--- Comment #3 from Kewen Lin ---
Will backport the fix after 2021 July 7th (two weeks since it's into trunk) if
this isn't urgent meanwhile got the backport approval.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101210
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
You are right, it might be a location which I forgot to convert g:45ba13ea.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101207
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2ad71efb5de9e929ffd2b8ce0a37c3c34021c0f1
commit r12-1837-g2ad71efb5de9e929ffd2b8ce0a37c3c34021c0f1
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101207
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101227
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes. It's basically the same issue as PR 96645. Nested types and default member
initializers are not compatible with standard library wrapper types. Yet
another horrible corner of C++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101228
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101236
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101203
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You can't use std::function at all in those environments.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101234
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Looks like the testsuite is incorrect, it should have been 'en_US.ISO8859-15'
I think that's exactly equivalent, the extra dash is optional.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101228
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at debian dot org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101228
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
There's no easy solution. Intel contributed the PSTL headers with a dependency
on TBB task.h header, then deprecated that header in a later TBB release. You
need to either use an older TBB, or suppress the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101236
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100753
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Partly implemented in r12-1768-g7619d33471c10fe3d149dcbb701d99ed3dd23528
In particular the in_reduction without nowait is implemented and for nowait
there is a hack - presence of in_reduction acts as if nowa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101237
Bug ID: 101237
Summary: HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (element_mode (t)) should be moved
to just HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (t)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101238
Bug ID: 101238
Summary: Driver won't find cc1/cc1plus on MinGW, CXXFLAGS need
-D__USE_MINGW_ACCESS
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101229
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f80c4eaca0805bc9e68ed944519519c3dd1c12e1
commit r12-1840-gf80c4eaca0805bc9e68ed944519519c3dd1c12e1
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101229
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101237
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101233
--- Comment #2 from 欢乐的0403 <475647575 at qq dot com> ---
This stumps me. I don't know if the code is valid or not.
But these code compiles:
v | ::ranges::v3::to;
v | ::ranges::v3::to_vector;
So I guess the code is more likely to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101235
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #3)
> Will backport the fix after 2021 July 7th (two weeks since it's into trunk)
> if this isn't urgent meanwhile got the backport approval.
The reason to not backp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101239
Bug ID: 101239
Summary: "Internal compiler error: Error reporting routines
re-entered." in size_in_bytes_loc
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Key
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101236
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
All right, thanks Jonathan.
I've just created LLVM bug for it: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50921
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101239
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101236
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||101239
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101233
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101233
--- Comment #4 from 欢乐的0403 <475647575 at qq dot com> ---
Good, looking forward to it being fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez ---
d is used before being defined. Isn't this entire test bogus?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> d is not an automatic variable, so is zero initialized.
Whoops. Sorry for the noise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101228
Pilar Latiesa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pilarlatiesa at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101236
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101240
Bug ID: 101240
Summary: [missed optimization] Transitivity of less-than and
less-or-equal
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93645
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
I replied here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/573823.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38470
Piotr Engelking changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||inkerman42 at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101241
Bug ID: 101241
Summary: Internal compiler error from MathFunctions.h in the
eigen library
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101239
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b7a89c041aa1d67654f1ba7b2839e221c3e14748
commit r12-1844-gb7a89c041aa1d67654f1ba7b2839e221c3e14748
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101236
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b7a89c041aa1d67654f1ba7b2839e221c3e14748
commit r12-1844-gb7a89c041aa1d67654f1ba7b2839e221c3e14748
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101236
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101228
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|MOVED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101242
Bug ID: 101242
Summary: Segfault in SLP vectorizor after 2ad71efb5de
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101242
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
For the reference, this is the backtrace:
mjambor@virgil:/tmp/bbb$ ~/gcc/trunk/inst/bin/gcc -S -Ofast test.i
during GIMPLE pass: slp
test.i: In function ‘check_su3’:
test.i:11:5: internal compiler error: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101242
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|Segfault in SLP vec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101243
Bug ID: 101243
Summary: Coroutine lambda capture is destroyed twice
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101243
--- Comment #1 from Victor Burckel ---
May be similar to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99576
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98401
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101244
Bug ID: 101244
Summary: Wrong path in coroutine returning ternary
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101244
--- Comment #1 from Victor Burckel ---
If ternary is not put in the co_return part but split into assignement return,
the compiler crashes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101149
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38470
--- Comment #25 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
(In reply to Piotr Engelking from comment #24)
> It would be nice if the compiler noticed that rhs is always within
> 0..SHRT_MAX, so the comparison is not surprisingly affected by integer
> promotion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100753
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Additionally missing: Fortran support.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101241
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38470
--- Comment #26 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Matthias Kretz (Vir) from comment #25)
> (In reply to Piotr Engelking from comment #24)
> > It would be nice if the compiler noticed that rhs is always within
> > 0..SHRT_MAX, so the compariso
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Macleod ---
I think this is our old friend 1-bit signed overflow.
for 1 signed bit values, varying is [-1, 0]
range-op::build_lt checks to see if UB - 1 overflows, and if it does, then the
result is undefined.
wi:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38470
--- Comment #27 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #26)
> But if I understand Piotr Engelking's point, UINT_MAX + 1 + s is not in the
> range 0..SHRT_MAX mentioned above, thus cannot be equal to u % 100. Said
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38470
--- Comment #28 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Matthias Kretz (Vir) from comment #27)
> Fair enough. But how can the compiler be certain that the developer realized
> u and u % 100 is unsigned? Maybe when (s)he wrote the code the expectati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101231
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101241
--- Comment #2 from Raymond Langer ---
Created attachment 51072
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51072&action=edit
preprocessed output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38470
--- Comment #29 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #28)
> (In reply to Matthias Kretz (Vir) from comment #27)
> > Fair enough. But how can the compiler be certain that the developer realized
> > u and u % 100
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97088
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:75f948f089cebfd00913635264e20610d0f2
commit r12-1845-g75f948f089cebfd00913635264e20610d0f2
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101241
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
I cannot reproduce this:
$ xg++ -c a-eigen_bug.ii -O3 -ffast-math -march=haswell
compiles.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38470
--- Comment #30 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Matthias Kretz (Vir) from comment #29)
> Right. But if that's the case wouldn't a warning about the unexpected
> promotion be useful? (which -Wsign-compare happens to provide)
Yes, and FYI, t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93385
--- Comment #45 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:87467f45e831e8e943efdae8920453741986d355
commit r12-1847-g87467f45e831e8e943efdae8920453741986d355
Author: Martin Jambor
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93385
--- Comment #46 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2902991a6b61d473f7cb996a2b80eef4a90f8eda
commit r12-1848-g2902991a6b61d473f7cb996a2b80eef4a90f8eda
Author: Martin Jambor
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58050
Antony Polukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||antoshkka at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58487
Antony Polukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||antoshkka at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98784
--- Comment #13 from YannSionneau ---
Created attachment 51073
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51073&action=edit
working uClibc build
This is a working libc build, that allows to boot Linux, run init, daemons and
get to usua
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98784
--- Comment #14 from YannSionneau ---
Created attachment 51074
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51074&action=edit
non-working uClibc-ng build
This is a build of uClibc-ng that does not allow normal Linux booting.
You can boot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101241
--- Comment #4 from Raymond Langer ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
> I cannot reproduce this:
>
> $ xg++ -c a-eigen_bug.ii -O3 -ffast-math -march=haswell
> compiles.
Yes,
g++ -c a-eigen_bug.ii -O3 -ffast-math -march=haswell
co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101241
--- Comment #5 from Raymond Langer ---
Using only -Ofast doesn't work either:
g++ -c a-eigen_bug.ii -Ofast
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101228
Thomas Rodgers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rodgertq at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98892
--- Comment #4 from Jim Wilson ---
It turns out that -fmessage-length=0 doesn't work which is odd. I suspect a
latent bug in the diagnostic code.
I tried -fmessage-length=128, which should work as that is longer than the
error line, and does wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93385
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] wrong |[10/11 Regression] wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101242
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Profiled LTO bootstrap also fails with a segfault with the same backtrace.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101241
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101243
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Victor Burckel from comment #1)
> May be similar to
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99576
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98401
I agree this is likely to be a dupli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101245
Bug ID: 101245
Summary: Bootstrap fails for a combined tree with
--enable-shared
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101246
Bug ID: 101246
Summary: gccgo cross-compiler targeting arm fails to build with
gcc 11. Missing structs in runtime.inc. Using
uclibc-ng
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101186
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101246
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Yes, runtime.inc is a generated file. Can you post the lines around the
errors?
These look like fields in a struct type, and I'd like to know which type it
is. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101212
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23144
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||muecker at gwdg dot de
--- Comment #27
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100017
Andreas K. Huettel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dilfridge at gentoo dot org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80196
Andreas K. Huettel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dilfridge at gentoo dot org
--- Com
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
