https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113857
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=113857
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117092
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||113858
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115218
--- Comment #2 from 康桓瑋 ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #1)
> Does this also mean the iterator's default ctor needs a
> default_initializable<_Vs...[0]> constraint?
The variant constructor already has such a constraint.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118936
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Summary|[15 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118935
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118920
--- Comment #2 from Frank B. Brokken ---
Dear pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org, you wrote:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118920
>
> Andrew Pinski changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118936
Bug ID: 118936
Summary: ICE in ix86_finalize_stack_frame_flags, at
config/i386/i386.cc:8683
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118927
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Nate Eldredge from comment #6)
> After some brief digging, it seems like the problem is that
> `cxx_printable_name_internal` can be called recursively by `lang_decl_name'
> (via `announce_functi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118936
--- Comment #1 from CTC <19373742 at buaa dot edu.cn> ---
Created attachment 60531
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60531&action=edit
The compiler output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115478
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ea3ebe48150d2109845f2c4622ebff182f618d97
commit r15-7615-gea3ebe48150d2109845f2c4622ebff182f618d97
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date: Mon Feb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116594
Jin Ma changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118935
Bug ID: 118935
Summary: Segmentation fault in 'libgomp.fortran/rwlock_1.f90'
when compiling libgfortran with '-O0'
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113525
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3e93035fcc9247928b58443e37fbf844278b7ac7
commit r15-7614-g3e93035fcc9247928b58443e37fbf844278b7ac7
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Tue Feb 18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118935
--- Comment #1 from chenglulu ---
Upon debugging, it was discovered that if the '-O0' option is used to compile
the `find_file0` function in `libgfortran/io/unix.c`, random errors occur.
However, if the `find_file0` function is compiled with the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118935
--- Comment #2 from chenglulu ---
However, based on the code logic, I believe that the linked list `unit_root` in
the `find_file0` function should not be modified. I'm not sure if my
understanding is correct.
```
/* find_file()-- Take the curren
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118919
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113858
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(set (reg:V4HI 105 [ _4 ])
(vec_merge:V4HI (vec_duplicate:V4HI (reg:HI 106 [ *a_3(D) ]))
(const_vector:V4HI [
(const_int 0 [0]) repeated x4
])
(const_int 1 [0x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118934
Bug ID: 118934
Summary: RISC-V: ICE: output_operand: invalid expression as
operand
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117092
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78633
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66358
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #34 from Jeffrey A.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65162
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15|[12 Regression][SH]
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56451
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 regression]|[12/13/14 regression] Wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118892
--- Comment #11 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #10)
> (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #9)
> > I swear that was something that was fixed. But in any case, the simplest
> > fix is to force it into a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118927
--- Comment #6 from Nate Eldredge ---
After some brief digging, it seems like the problem is that
`cxx_printable_name_internal` can be called recursively by `lang_decl_name'
(via `announce_function'). This is bad because, with its static ring b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118920
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Frank B. Brokken from comment #2)
> Interesting! If I specify -fno-checking no error is reported. So your
> suggestion works. Certainly something for me to keep in mind. Do you think
> that -fno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118923
Bug ID: 118923
Summary: Wrong code generated for member function pointer call
in range-for loop
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118221
--- Comment #10 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Fixing this properly would require rewriting all of GCC's dwarf output code so
that each function in a separate section had its own debug data (and perhaps
using section groups to describe the relationsh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
--- Comment #11 from Sam James ---
```
--- stage2-gc.d.010t.omplower 2025-02-18 17:37:52.789497648 +
+++ stage3-gc.d.010t.omplower 2025-02-18 17:38:00.421354601 +
@@ -5910,7 +5910,7 @@
-;; Function __xtoHash
(_D4core8internal2gc4i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118924
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118927
--- Comment #4 from Nate Eldredge ---
Note for testing that the compiler doesn't crash when compiling only
bits/std.cc, or when a-std.ii and a-foo.ii are concatenated into a single file.
It seems to be important that they are passed as separate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118925
Bug ID: 118925
Summary: Comparison of the copy of a volatile register variable
instead of the (register) variable
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118924
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.5.0
Summary|Wrong code at -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118926
Bug ID: 118926
Summary: sarif-replay doesn't output notifications
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: SARIF
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118921
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48026
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=48026
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
-checking --enable-languages=c++
--prefix=/home/nate/do-not-backup/gcc-inst
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 15.0.1 20250218 (experimental) (GCC)
nguages=c,c++,lto
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 15.0.1 20250218 (experimental) (GCC)
Unreduced testcase works fine with GCC14. With test case it ends up in
parsing errors. GCC15 ends up with same backtrace with unreduced and
reduced testcase.
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118927
--- Comment #1 from Nate Eldredge ---
Created attachment 60525
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60525&action=edit
Preprocessor output for foo.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118927
--- Comment #2 from Nate Eldredge ---
Created attachment 60526
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60526&action=edit
Preprocessor output for std.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118927
--- Comment #3 from Nate Eldredge ---
Created attachment 60527
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60527&action=edit
stderr output from compilation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114913
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115458
--- Comment #17 from Vladimir Makarov ---
The bug seems like wrong repeated interaction hard reg live range splitting and
inheritance. I'll try to make a patch and hope to fix it on this week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118932
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #0)
> I think then testcase as is conflicts with the current standard, which says
> about binding labels:
I think I wanted to say: "the intention of the testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118928
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118926
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Example of such a .sarif file can be seen at
https://github.com/davidmalcolm/sarif-examples/blob/main/valid/2.1.0/gcc/3.20.21-ice.sarif
(and the other "ice" files)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110822
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
At least I can reproduce it consistently with:
```
cd
/var/tmp/portage.notmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-15.0./work/gcc-15.0./libphobos/libdruntime
# build stage2 gc
/var/tmp/portage.notmp/portage/sys-devel/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118924
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118928
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118929
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
For reference, GCC 15 prints the diagnostic textually like this when generating
that sarif file (via a test plugin):
diagnostic-test-paths-multithreaded-inline-events.c:17:3: warning: deadlock due
to incons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
wtf?
```
--- stage2-gc.d.006t.original 2025-02-18 17:30:33.525730918 +
+++ stage3-gc.d.006t.original 2025-02-18 17:30:42.471563243 +
@@ -26,12 +26,12 @@
{
struct ConservativeGC * gc;
- gc = (s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118924
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118929
Bug ID: 118929
Summary: sarif-replay doesn't support multithreaded paths
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
(I pasted the wrong command and used the wrong one in script.)
At least I can reproduce it consistently with:
```
cd
/var/tmp/portage.notmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-15.0./work/gcc-15.0./libphobos/libdrunt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118193
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
No longer ICEs since r15-7209.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118923
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118924
Bug ID: 118924
Summary: Wrong code leading to uninitialized accesses on
aarch64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116986
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118924
--- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan ---
A bisect points to r10-917-g3b47da42de621c6c3bf7d2f9245df989aa7eb5a1 :
commit 3b47da42de621c6c3bf7d2f9245df989aa7eb5a1
Author: Martin Jambor
Date: Thu Jun 6 17:31:20 2019
Make SRA re-construct orginal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118923
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118927
--- Comment #5 from Nate Eldredge ---
Oh, it's actually triggered by the compilation of a-foo.ii itself, but the
gcm.cache has to have previously been created.
The gcm.cache is too large to post as an attachment, but I can share it another
way
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115781
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118924
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60528
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60528&action=edit
testcase which can be compiled with both the C and C++ front-end
This testcase fails when compiled with the C+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 118193, which changed state.
Bug 118193 Summary: [12/13/14/15 regression] [C++17+] ICE: in
verify_ctor_sanity, at cp/constexpr.cc:5362 since r13-1901-g9efe4e153d9949
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118193
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118193
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118925
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #1 from An
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118912
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115218
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117270
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 117270, which changed state.
Bug 117270 Summary: [15 Regression] 9% exec time slowdown of 538.imagick_r on
aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117270
What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118917
Bug ID: 118917
Summary: 'class declared private here' points to definition
instead
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118320
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alex Coplan :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:facdce9028060c8dc4340a38ae02fb071e16af08
commit r15-7604-gfacdce9028060c8dc4340a38ae02fb071e16af08
Author: Alex Coplan
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117712
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118918
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118918
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org
Resoluti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113997
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32630
Bug 32630 depends on bug 113997, which changed state.
Bug 113997 Summary: Bogus 'Warning: Interface mismatch in global procedure'
with C binding
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113997
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56210
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Last recon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 56531, which changed state.
Bug 56531 Summary: SLP load permutations cannot share the load between and
inside SLP instances
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56531
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56531
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56270
Bug 56270 depends on bug 56531, which changed state.
Bug 56531 Summary: SLP load permutations cannot share the load between and
inside SLP instances
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56531
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117525
--- Comment #19 from Richard Earnshaw ---
I'm not convinced this is correct. See the discussion on the patch here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2003-March/098380.html and the
related PR (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38486
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118930
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118930
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Oh wait never mind.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118930
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is a dup ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118922
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118922
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60529
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60529&action=edit
testcase that fails before
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118931
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||riscv
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118920
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118933
Bug ID: 118933
Summary: Missed optimization: __builtin_unreachable() does not
work as expected on std::vector data compared to raw
pointer and length
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118933
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is because `len` is vec.end() - vec.begin() where end is a pointer load.
and then `data + len` gets re-optimized to just vec.end().
And so len is no longer taken into account in std::accumulate loop.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118933
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116986
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by John David Anglin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8c03fbd77654713b3bc90ebada3f880f9dd06bf7
commit r15-7607-g8c03fbd77654713b3bc90ebada3f880f9dd06bf7
Author: John David Anglin
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115703
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Robin Dapp :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:44d4a1086d965fb5280daf65c7c4a253ad6cc8a1
commit r15-7608-g44d4a1086d965fb5280daf65c7c4a253ad6cc8a1
Author: Robin Dapp
Date: Thu Feb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118910
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Richi -- I think that's been the plan of record for a while. My general sense
is that most of what DOM is doing can be handled elsewhere.
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
