https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108803
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108817
Bug ID: 108817
Summary: ASAN at -O3 failed to detect a global-buffer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108783
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:55db240d28d29aac90a2d2af3768283ba6288752
commit r13-6074-g55db240d28d29aac90a2d2af3768283ba6288752
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108783
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108818
Bug ID: 108818
Summary: [aarch64] use a extra mov instruction compare to llvm
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
ystem-zlib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 13.0.1 20230216 (experimental) [master r13-6073-g441c466fd4d] (GCC)
[571] %
[571] % gcctk -O1 small.c; ./a.out
[572] %
[572] % gcctk -O1 -fno-tree-ccp -fno-tree-forwprop small.c
during GIMPLE pass: ivcanon
small.c: I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107699
--- Comment #11 from Carlos Galvez ---
Consider this more realistic example:
https://godbolt.org/z/jbbqbe8d9
The compiler has all the information available to ensure that getCount().get()
is smaller than 3, as enforced by the class invariant w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101228
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. you can use -DTBB_SUPPRESS_DEPRECATED_MESSAGES=1 to suppress the warning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108721
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In the reduced testcase there is certainly an aliasing violation.
struct {
unsigned f0
} g_95 = {65531};
...
*g_412 = &g_95;
...
--g_95.f0;
*g_86 = g_613 || 0;
*g_412 = 0;
short *l_873 = &g_95;
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108820
Bug ID: 108820
Summary: vector::resize(n, v) requires copy_assignable, which
is not part of the CopyInsertable concept
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108721
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108820
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think we have three bugs about this already.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106239
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.mutz at hotmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108820
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108718
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108796
Aaron Ballman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aaron at aaronballman dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106258
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107411
--- Comment #8 from Qing Zhao ---
> On Feb 16, 2023, at 2:35 AM, rguenther at suse dot de
> wrote:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107411
>
> --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2023, qinzhao a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108657
--- Comment #22 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:866555b170016c49beb869a78cbecdeb07c63135
commit r13-6083-g866555b170016c49beb869a78cbecdeb07c63135
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108030
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Matthias Kretz :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:53b55701aed6896f456cdec7997ac6bbef1d6074
commit r13-6090-g53b55701aed6896f456cdec7997ac6bbef1d6074
Author: Matthias Kretz
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108821
Bug ID: 108821
Summary: Extra volatile access with -O2 -ftree-loop-im since
GCC-11
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107760
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108822
Bug ID: 108822
Summary: [C++23] Implement P2255R2, type trait to detect
reference binding to temporary
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108823
Bug ID: 108823
Summary: ranges::transform could be smarter with two sized
ranges
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108822
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108819
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108823
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107773
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:46711ff8e60d64b7e5550f4614c29d42b224f98b
commit r13-6098-g46711ff8e60d64b7e5550f4614c29d42b224f98b
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105959
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108824
Bug ID: 108824
Summary: ASAN -O2/3 missed a stack-buffer-underflow since
GCC-10
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107773
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108803
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108821
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84699
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|discarded value expression |[DR1054] discarded value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108821
Franz Sirl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther at suse dot de
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104554
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e2c6bc6bb5628bb51b56d1da3f9907ae45a3a01b
commit r12-9179-ge2c6bc6bb5628bb51b56d1da3f9907ae45a3a01b
Author: Steve Kargl
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108818
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |rtl-optimization
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104554
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.3
Status|ASSI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108825
Bug ID: 108825
Summary: error during GIMPLE pass: unrolljam
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108818
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-02-16
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108825
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108803
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- gcc/optabs.cc.jj2023-01-02 09:32:53.309838465 +0100
+++ gcc/optabs.cc 2023-02-16 18:04:54.794871019 +0100
@@ -596,6 +596,16 @@ expand_doubleword_shift_condmove (scalar
{
rtx outof_superword
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108803
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-02-16
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108826
Bug ID: 108826
Summary: Inefficient address generation on POWER and RISC-V
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108826
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
AARCH64 looks ok too because of the use of more complex adddresses:
ldr w0, [x0, #:lo12:.LANCHOR0]
and w0, w2, w0, lsr 6
add x0, x0, 200
ldr w0, [x1, x0, lsl 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108826
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually this is aarch64:
ldr x1, [x0, #:lo12:.LANCHOR0]
ldr w0, [x3, 8]
and w0, w2, w0, lsr 6
add x0, x0, 200
ldr w0, [x1, x0, lsl 2]
str
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108826
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Note I need to better understand why the C++ front-end thinks this would be
> invalid ...
Oh because the struct name is unnamed :).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108803
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I take back the "I wonder why we haven't optimized it earlier", the reason is
-Og, we do optimize that in evrp/vrp*, but those aren't done with -Og.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108827
Bug ID: 108827
Summary: [C++23] Implement P2387R3, Pipe support for
user-defined range adaptors
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108826
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103370
--- Comment #9 from Joseph S. Myers ---
The glibc build failure has done away and come back at least once since my
previous comment. It came back (I think the most recent time) with
commit 4fa25a7eb322f0a003c1eb15680c71ece345e01e
Author: Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108803
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
On the other side, if we knew that the backend would use something like the
shifts with masking, we could then avoid the extra reverse unsigned shift by 1
+ reverse unsigned shift by (63 - op1) & 63 plus two
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108826
--- Comment #5 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
We've run into a handful of things that look like this before, I'm not sure if
it's a backend issue or something more general. There's two patterns here that
are frequently bad on RISC-V: "unsign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108826
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to palmer from comment #5)
> We've run into a handful of things that look like this before, I'm not sure
> if it's a backend issue or something more general. There's two patterns
> here that are f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106282
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.5
Summary|m68k: Problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108828
Bug ID: 108828
Summary: ivopts silencing gcc.dg/Wuse-after-free-2.c:115
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108825
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Trying revision 1191a412bb17a734.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108829
Bug ID: 108829
Summary: internal compiler error: in is_capture_proxy, at
cp/lambda.cc:272
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108829
--- Comment #1 from Slava Barinov ---
Created attachment 54475
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54475&action=edit
Result of -freport-bug
Added full output of -freport-bug call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108803
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The change then would be
--- gcc/optabs.cc.jj2023-01-02 09:32:53.309838465 +0100
+++ gcc/optabs.cc 2023-02-16 19:33:14.583883584 +0100
@@ -507,7 +507,7 @@ expand_subword_shift (scalar_int_mode op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108829
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108829
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||13.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108829
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> I can see the ICE but the reduced test seems overreduced and invalid; do you
> have the original .ii file?
It was attached in comment #1 too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108829
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.3
Summary|[13 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108825
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #2)
> Trying revision 1191a412bb17a734.
Seems bad. Trying 59ad8b684dd67e17.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108829
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108796
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Thu, 16 Feb 2023, aaron at aaronballman dot com via Gcc-bugs wrote:
> > The logic is that GNU attributes are declaration specifiers (and can mix
> > anywhere with other declaration spec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108819
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|13.0|12.3
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108825
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
git range now seems to be g:59ad8b684dd67e17 .. g:3b54cc9d04c2efb2,
which is 103 commits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108803
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 54476
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54476&action=edit
gcc13-pr108803.patch
Actually, the above patch isn't correct because for op1 equal to 0 we really
need the rev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108796
--- Comment #9 from Aaron Ballman ---
> GNU attributes are declaration specifiers *in the previous examples given
> here*, not necessarily in all other cases.
Thanks for clarifying!
> (There is then logic in GCC to handle __attribute__ that,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108825
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #4)
> git range now seems to be g:59ad8b684dd67e17 .. g:3b54cc9d04c2efb2,
> which is 103 commits.
git range now seems to be g:0cbb756fe9c8e13a .. g:3b54cc9d04c2ef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107411
--- Comment #9 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
it's a bug in tree-ssa-uninit.cc actually.
when doing the following:
/* Ignore the call to .DEFERRED_INIT that define the original
var itself as the following case:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107411
--- Comment #10 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
the following patch fixed this issue:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-uninit.cc b/gcc/tree-ssa-uninit.cc
index c555cf5cd50..eca727b010a 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-uninit.cc
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-uninit.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108825
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
git range now seems to be g:0cbb756fe9c8e13a .. g:bd044dae51caea3c,
which is 6 commits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108825
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #6)
> git range now seems to be g:0cbb756fe9c8e13a .. g:bd044dae51caea3c,
> which is 6 commits.
Most likely r13-3875-g9e11ceef165bc0 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107411
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108825
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther at suse dot de
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108825
--- Comment #9 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #8)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> > (In reply to David Binderman from comment #6)
> > > git range now seems to be g:0cbb756fe9c8e13a .. g:bd044da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107411
--- Comment #12 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> (In reply to qinzhao from comment #10)
> > the following patch fixed this issue:
>
> This would leak memory.
thank you, I will fix the memory lea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108824
Li Shaohua changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108796
--- Comment #10 from Aaron Ballman ---
One other reason for the Clang behavior that may be worth mentioning is that
this helps users who wish to migrate away from `__attribute__` and towards
`[[]]`. Many (most?) uses of attributes end up behind
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108806
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4d3b7be281e73ecdaa233598db1a8390422b7770
commit r13-6101-g4d3b7be281e73ecdaa233598db1a8390422b7770
Author: David Malcolm
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108806
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108827
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108830
Bug ID: 108830
Summary: Excess warnings from -Wanalyzer-null-dereference
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90838
Gabriel Ravier changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gabravier at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90838
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Gabriel Ravier from comment #12)
> It appears this new optimization is non-functional on trunk with x86-64...
> specifically on x86-64, too, on AArch64 it works just fine. So does that
> mean th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108807
--- Comment #2 from Kewen Lin ---
Created attachment 54478
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54478&action=edit
untested patch
The lvsr and lvsl for generating permutation control vectors only works for LE
as the element order
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108814
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108807
--- Comment #3 from Kewen Lin ---
*** Bug 108814 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108810
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-02-17
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107411
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 16 Feb 2023, qing.zhao at oracle dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107411
>
> --- Comment #8 from Qing Zhao ---
> > On Feb 16, 2023, at 2:35 AM, rguenther a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94649
--- Comment #7 from Henning Baldersheim ---
Thanks, perhaps add 104688 to the see also list.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77760
--- Comment #8 from Alexandre Oliva ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-February/612198.html has a
simple-minded implementation, that should make it clear what I mean by scratch:
get() pays no regard to the incoming bits in tm, it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105224
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma |https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108816
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
97 matches
Mail list logo
