https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88396
--- Comment #5 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Filed the bug on binutils side as well:
https://sourceware.org/PR23958
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88396
--- Comment #4 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Created attachment 45175
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45175=edit
gcc-lto-616038.tar.gz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88396
--- Comment #3 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> >I'm not sure if it's an ld or gcc bug.
>
> Since it works with gold, this is more likely an BFD ld issue.
>
> What version of binutils are you trying
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88398
--- Comment #2 from Jiangning Liu ---
memcmp doesn't return the position where they differ.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80203
Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88398
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88398
Bug ID: 88398
Summary: vectorization failure for a small loop to do byte
comparison
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88396
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Maybe at one point related to
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12319 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35532
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski ---
> 1. build and install Glibc --prefix=/tmp/foo
Since glibc is not able to build this way any more, I doubt this can be
supported.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35532
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|WAITING
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32497
--- Comment #15 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Valeriy E. Ushakov from comment #11)
> Created attachment 44668 [details]
> Diff against gcc-6.4.0
>
> This is essentially the same diff except gcc now provides its own
> HOST_WIDE_INT_C()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88397
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
> noreturn
See the FIXME right above it:
/* FIXME: logically, noreturn attributes should be listed as
"false, true, true" and apply to function types. But implementing this
would require all the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88397
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39222
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to xiaoyuanbo from comment #6)
> total root
What did you mean by this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38093
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
Created attachment 45174
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45174=edit
uudecoded
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #1)
> > That patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37637
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35532
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79604
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65725
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Please always say how you configured GCC.
Reporter has since done this; does this bug still need to stay in WAITING?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88397
Bug ID: 88397
Summary: attribute malloc ignored on function pointers when
alloc_size is accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59447
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at codesourcery dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88271
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
I have results from Callgrind. Cycle estimation for MoveRows function (without
children) is 58.29%. This is for app without test instruction. So in synthetic
benchmark for this function only speed change
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88146
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||87814
--- Comment #9 from Alexandre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87814
--- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-12/msg00423.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85569
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #12 from Alexandre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88271
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
One more note: this particular function creates matrices with all possible
permutations of row order of original matrix, which satisfies some additional
criteria. So this optimization may be applicable to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88396
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>I'm not sure if it's an ld or gcc bug.
Since it works with gold, this is more likely an BFD ld issue.
What version of binutils are you trying with?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88271
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
Average for version with test is 246.313ms, I deleted too many digits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88271
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
How to use perf? I did not have change to use it yet, I usually use time
command or callgrind.
I have run my app compiled with AVX2 instructions on Xeon E5-2683 v3, CentOS
7.6, on idle CPU. I run it 3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85593
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 6 23:41:04 2018
New Revision: 266881
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266881=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/85593
* final.c (rest_of_handle_final): Don't call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85770
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 6 23:39:12 2018
New Revision: 266880
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266880=gcc=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/85770
* gcc.target/i386/pr85770.c: Require
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88377
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 6 23:29:04 2018
New Revision: 266879
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266879=gcc=rev
Log:
PR fortran/88377
* trans-openmp.c (gfc_omp_clause_default_ctor,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88367
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 6 23:28:04 2018
New Revision: 266878
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266878=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c/88367
* tree-vrp.c (extract_range_from_binary_expr): For
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87506
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 6 23:25:10 2018
New Revision: 266877
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266877=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/87506
* constexpr.c (adjust_temp_type): Handle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88396
Bug ID: 88396
Summary: -flto -Wl,--whole-archive causes "multiple definition"
errors in elfutils (only for bfd, not gold)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86747
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Thu Dec 6 23:18:40 2018
New Revision: 266875
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266875=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR86747] tsubst friend tpl ctxt before looking it up for dupes
When a member
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86397
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Thu Dec 6 23:18:30 2018
New Revision: 266874
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266874=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR86397] resolve nondependent noexcept specs early in C++1[14]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88316
--- Comment #3 from pc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: pc
Date: Thu Dec 6 22:14:55 2018
New Revision: 266870
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266870=gcc=rev
Log:
[rs6000] Enable x86-compat vector intrinsics testing
The testsuite tests for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88316
--- Comment #2 from pc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: pc
Date: Thu Dec 6 22:11:01 2018
New Revision: 266869
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266869=gcc=rev
Log:
[rs6000] Fix x86-compat vector intrinsics testcases for BE, 32bit
Fix general
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88316
--- Comment #1 from pc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: pc
Date: Thu Dec 6 22:03:25 2018
New Revision: 266868
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266868=gcc=rev
Log:
[rs6000] x86-compat vector intrinsics fixes for BE, 32bit
Fix general endian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #30 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Is already included in sol2.h (ASAN_CC1_SPEC).
OK. Then unwind info is needed in the epilogue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87861
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88136
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Dec 6 21:17:08 2018
New Revision: 266867
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266867=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/88136 - -Wdeprecated-copy false positives
Deprecating the copy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88271
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Daniel Fruzynski from comment #3)
> What about adding new pass at the end? It would look for various possible
> optimizations, which were missed earlier because they are cross-basic block.
We do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88372
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #29 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #28 from Eric Botcazou ---
[...]
>> -fno-delayed-branch made no difference.
>
> What about -fasynchronous-unwind-tables?
Is already included in sol2.h (ASAN_CC1_SPEC).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88240
--- Comment #10 from Thomas De Schampheleire ---
I was able to further investigate and reduce the problem.
Qemu is now out of the picture, I can reproduce the issue directly on a real
CPU. All I need to do is enable the 'underflow' exception bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87380
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Thu Dec 6 20:09:26 2018
New Revision: 266866
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266866=gcc=rev
Log:
Darwin - fix PR c++/87380
This is [intentionally] broken C++ ABI, that was catering
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #28 from Eric Botcazou ---
> For a quick check, I just tried it on
> c-c++-common/asan/heap-overflow-1.c at -O0
>
> #0 0x11258 in main
> /vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/asan/heap-overflow-1.
> c:21
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86393
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88373
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88373
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Dec 6 19:43:17 2018
New Revision: 266865
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266865=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/88373 - wrong parse error with ~.
* parser.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88271
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
What about adding new pass at the end? It would look for various possible
optimizations, which were missed earlier because they are cross-basic block.
In my case this example code is part of tight loop.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85145
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #58 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Thu Dec 6 19:21:32 2018
New Revision: 266863
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266863=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix PR libstdc++/64883 Darwin headers use always_inline so don't test that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84345
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Do we actually care about these now that we have gcc_qsort?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #27 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Try -fno-delayed-branch then? The debug info and unwind info for delayed
> slots
> isn't really well defined...
For a quick check, I just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87733
--- Comment #8 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #6)
> Peter, can you please clarify, is this actually fixed (as in, one of your
> patches addressed this particular issue) or just happens to be not
> reproducible
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85593
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88139
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78022
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Or, let's say, started to be accepted.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88282
--- Comment #9 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Dec 6 18:41:46 2018
New Revision: 266862
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266862=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-12-06 Vladimir Makarov
PR target/88282
* ira.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78022
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87369
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I wonder if we would be better off having the bfxil pattern reject cases when
just the high bit is on (which are those cases where we'd be able to use a bit
instruction rather than bfxil.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88214
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
I'm going to test the following fix:
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-prop.c b/gcc/ipa-prop.c
index 7405235..4dbe268 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-prop.c
+++ b/gcc/ipa-prop.c
@@ -1569,7 +1569,8 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87733
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Feel free to send a patch.
Yes it is fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87369
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85593
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87733
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov ---
If this is fixed then the testcase should be added to the testsuite to make
sure we catch it if we regress again (this worked before e.g. on gcc-4.1).
Peter, can you please clarify, is this actually
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55681
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Dec 6 17:47:52 2018
New Revision: 266859
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266859=gcc=rev
Log:
asm qualifiers (PR55681)
PR55681 observes that currently only one qualifier
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88374
--- Comment #2 from Bob Steagall ---
See https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020, especially comment 7
for more data.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88214
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
OK, I take it all back. SSA_NAME_RANGE_INFO and SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO
share storage by design, the latter should not be accessed because the
SSA_NAME is an integer but it still happens to be a base in a MEM_REF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87733
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86753
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85881
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87733
--- Comment #4 from Peter Bergner ---
Ok, so we can mark this as already fixed then and leave it at that. That's
fine with me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88394
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88214
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
I don't think this has much to do with IPA-CP per se. What is
happening is that call_may_clobber_ref_p_1 extracts SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO
of an SSA_NAME that is a base of a MEM_REF and runs
pt_solutions_intersect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85804
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
FYI, this used to work fine before r256634 with which it started to ICE:
pr85804.c: In function ‘main’:
pr85804.c:4:5: internal compiler error: in vect_permute_load_chain, at
tree-vect-data-refs.c:5511
int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87733
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88271
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Try -fno-delayed-branch then? The debug info and unwind info for delayed slots
isn't really well defined...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #25 from Eric Botcazou ---
> It is definitely used, same as on Solaris/x86 where this issue doesn't
> occur.
Maybe related to delay slots then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88234
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87733
--- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner ---
None of my recent IRA or LRA patches were back ported and I wasn't planning on
it, given the fallout they caused. Do we know for sure this doesn't work on
GCC 8?
Given when Alexander opened this bug, I'm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87787
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Not yet, sorry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86393
--- Comment #7 from MCCCS ---
The problem was that the LLVM assembler required -mavx512f. I've researched it
and found that this LLVM bug was fixed months and shipped with LLVM 7. Apple
updates Xcode's LLVM with one year delay, and it should be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87787
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88372
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88363
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88395
Bug ID: 88395
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault signal terminated program
cc1plus, with -std=c++2a -fconcepts
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87935
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88285
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88382
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The extension is intentionally supported. Thus, it should be documented.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87733
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88234
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88363
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85185
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87598
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] Rejects|[8 Regression] Rejects
1 - 100 of 642 matches
Mail list logo
