https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118114
chenglulu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chenglulu at loongson dot cn
Xi Ruoyao cha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118114
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
One workaround is enabling -flto to do the DESC => IE optimization in GCC,
instead of ld.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118114
--- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao ---
It seems fixed with ld 2.43.50.20241219.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118114
--- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #5)
> It seems fixed with ld 2.43.50.20241219.
0f18
<_ZZNSt9once_flag18_Prepare_executionC4IZSt9call_onceIRFvvEJEEvRS_OT_DpOT0_EUlvE_EERS6_ENUlvE_4_FUNEv>:
f18:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118114
--- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Hmm... This seems like a ld bug:
a.out: file format elf64-loongarch
DYNAMIC RELOCATION RECORDS
OFFSET TYPE VALUE
7d90 R_LARCH_RELATIVE *ABS*+0x0d88
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118114
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118109
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118033
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118114
--- Comment #7 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #6)
> I'm bisecting on binutils-gdb.git to see when exactly it's fixed.
commit 5c3d09c1855b948dd43b9f5f8b3d8aa254d75f43
Author: mengqinggang
Date: Thu Oct 10 16:20:52 202
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
--- Comment #12 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #10)
> (In reply to Sam James from comment #9)
> > Ah, sorry, I see it on the original with -O2. I don't see it on the reduced
> > one (though it was invalid anyway). O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
--- Comment #16 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #15)
> For the first test case, the reduced code seems to be:
>
> void printf(...);
> int crc32_tab[256];
> int crc32_context = 4294967295, g_27, g_64, g_90 = 3, func_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117732
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64-linux-gnu |aarch64-linux-gnu,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117732
--- Comment #8 from Xi Ruoyao ---
And there are some different -Wpedantic warnings in 13.2.0
(https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/build-logs/12.1/i9-13900K/logs/826-gcc-13.2.0):
../../../../libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_stack_store.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117732
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to fai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113159
--- Comment #11 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #10)
> As a compiler user I would actually love my STL to crash fast on invalid
> comparators rather than produce unpredictable and meaningless results which
> will cause m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113159
--- Comment #12 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Also note even
bool cmp(Element a, Element b) { return false; }
is a *valid* comparator, per the standard. Though it'll likely produce
completely meaningless result, it's just your own logical error as it vi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118409
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118194
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118403
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96570
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118369
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118500
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118501
--- Comment #12 from Xi Ruoyao ---
LoongArch fixed on trunk too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118627
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
Keyword
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118627
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-01-23
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118625
Bug ID: 118625
Summary: Ironic fix-it hint when the right parenthesis of an
assert macro is forgotten
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118561
Bug ID: 118561
Summary: [15 Regression] ICE calling
__builtin_lasx_xvpickve2gr_w with lasx disabled
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118501
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118455
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118455
--- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to llualpu from comment #2)
> Yes, I usually use the simpler -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG and -DDEBUG. But I'll take a
> look at -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS because this is the first time I hear about
> this. Thanks!
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118474
Bug ID: 118474
Summary: -Wanalyzer-allocation-size false positive with -O0
-fsanitize=integer-divide-by-zero -fanalyzer
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113159
--- Comment #15 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #14)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #12)
> > Also note even
> >
> > bool cmp(Element a, Element b) { return false; }
> >
> > is a *valid* comparator, per the stand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118142
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118194
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115767
--- Comment #22 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Maybe it's worthy to try the new LLVM TBAA sanitizer for this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118806
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118843
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao ---
We have
if (TARGET_HARD_FLOAT && ISA_HAS_FRECIPE)
builtin_define ("__loongarch_frecipe");
where the logic seems correct. But __loongarch_frecipe is also in
la_evo_macro_name and it can get defined by:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118843
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #3)
> I tried to make some changes, and the test went smoothly without any issues.
> for (int i = 0; i < N_EVO_FEATURES; i++)
> {
> builtin_undef (la_evo_macro_na
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84918
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119340
--- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> Created attachment 60797 [details]
> reduced.i
Hmm strangely I cannot reproduce the ICE with the reduced test case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119340
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119340
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #3)
> (In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> > Created attachment 60797 [details]
> > reduced.i
>
> Hmm strangely I cannot reproduce the ICE with the reduced test case.
.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119408
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
--- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119408
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119429
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |FIXED
--- Comment #24 from Xi Ruoyao ---
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119314
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119253
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978
--- Comment #39 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Chen Chen from comment #38)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #37)
> > So if we revert r15-7525 now, would things work normally with just r15-6657?
> > If so I'd suggest to revert r15-7525 (now
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119213
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119353
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119408
--- Comment #9 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Ok for a backport into the 14 branch (where __float128 has been added)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119408
--- Comment #17 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #16)
/* snip */
> diff --git a/libgfortran/acinclude.m4 b/libgfortran/acinclude.m4
> index a73207e5465..8913dacb2b1 100644
> --- a/libgfortran/acinclude.m4
> +++ b/libgfort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119408
--- Comment #16 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #15)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #14)
> > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #13)
> > > There is a problem now. When gcc supports both _Float128 and Q suffixes,
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119408
--- Comment #19 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #18)
> _Float128 is definitely not for backward compatibility
Sorry, I mean __float128.
The problem here is we added __float128 as an alias of _Float128 for
compatibili
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119408
--- Comment #14 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #13)
> There is a problem now. When gcc supports both _Float128 and Q suffixes, the
> libquadmath library will be automatically linked when the fortran program is
> compiled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978
--- Comment #29 from Xi Ruoyao ---
For 15 r15-7525 is intended for this issue. But I don't know if it's a good
idea to backport it, as it's only a workaround, not a proper fix.
Could someone try the diff in PR 115842 comment 6 (one time just o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978
--- Comment #32 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Or perhaps you can run a bisect. Unfortunately I don't have SPEC access.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117452
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118885
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118885
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119973
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15/16 Regression] Wrong|[15/16 Regression] Wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119929
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||syq at gcc dot gnu.org,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119973
Bug ID: 119973
Summary: [15/16 Regression] Wrong code at -O1 -fipa-pta -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120050
Bug ID: 120050
Summary: [15/16 Regression] Fail to bootstrap on mips64el with
--with-arch=gs464 --with-build-config=bootstrap-O3
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120050
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.2
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120050
--- Comment #1 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Hmm, the ICE with trunk is from gcc_checking_assert. Thus maybe the difference
between 15 and 16 comes from the different --enable-checking setting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120050
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119973
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68331
Bug 68331 depends on bug 119973, which changed state.
Bug 119973 Summary: [15 Regression] Wrong code at -O1 -fipa-pta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119973
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119973
--- Comment #9 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #8)
> Why'd you close? Doesn't it affect 15 too?
Oops, I misread the 15 backport for another issue in my mail box as the fix for
this :(.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120050
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
As a hack I disabled ext-dce for MIPS by default:
diff --git a/gcc/config/mips/mips.cc b/gcc/config/mips/mips.cc
index 24a28dcf817..cf4784c48bb 100644
--- a/gcc/config/mips/mips.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/mips/mips.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120064
Bug ID: 120064
Summary: doc: -f[no-]ext-dce not documented
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120050
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |needs-reduction
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120050
--- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Before ext-dce:
(insn 420 419 421 43 (set (reg:SI 423 [ _144 ])
(truncate:SI (reg:DI 304 [ ivtmp.55 ]))) 203 {truncdisi2}
(nil))
(insn 421 420 422 43 (set (reg:DI 523 [ i ])
(sign_extend:DI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120050
--- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Before ext-dce:
(insn 421 420 422 43 (set (reg:DI 523 [ i ])
(sign_extend:DI (reg:SI 423 [ _144 ]))) 238 {extendsidi2}
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:SI 423 [ _144 ])
(nil)))
(insn 440 439 441 45
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118908
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118908
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
The standard library has no obligation to make it "predictable" except it must
be available with #include .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96570
--- Comment #13 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Bernhard M. Wiedemann from comment #12)
> @Xi: that is a cast from time_t to int, but I want a warning for conversion
> from int to time_t
>
> And IMHO we don't have to force warnings for explicit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118326
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118918
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118925
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118935
--- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao ---
I guess we have a race condition here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119084
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1)
> Created attachment 60632 [details]
> untested patch
It causes an ICE with
V16QI y = __builtin_lsx_vldx ((char *)0, t);
I'll fix it before sending the patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119084
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119077
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119084
Bug ID: 119084
Summary: LoongArch: __builtin_lsx_vldx can be incorrectly
reordered
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119084
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119084
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60632|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106585
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|RISC-V: Mis-optimized code |RISC-V: Miss optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119084
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/cisco/op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119084
--- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-March/676725.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119089
--- Comment #14 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to John David Anglin from comment #13)
> Debian doesn't ship fixed pthread.h but they are in my personal
> builds. I will probably remove fixed pthread.h from my personal
> builds.
Or use --disable-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119089
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119095
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119127
--- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao ---
It happens at:
trying to combine definition of r94 in:
15: r94:DI=r92:DI<<0x2&0xfffc
REG_DEAD r92:DI
into:
17: r96:DI=sign_extend(r87:SI+r94:DI#0)
REG_DEAD r94:DI
REG_DEAD r87:SI
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119127
--- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #4)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #3)
> > It happens at:
> >
> > trying to combine definition of r94 in:
> >15: r94:DI=r92:DI<<0x2&0xfffc
> > REG_DEAD
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119127
--- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao ---
More simplified test case:
int x;
struct Type {
unsigned SubclassData : 24;
} y;
void test(void) {
x = y.SubclassData * 37;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119127
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119084
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
901 - 1000 of 1044 matches
Mail list logo
