https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88170
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 31 07:37:34 2019
New Revision: 268413
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268413=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/88170
* c-pretty-print.c (pp_c_enumeration_constant):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89135
Bug ID: 89135
Summary: internal compiler error: in gimple_split_edge, at
tree-cfg.c:2747
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89127
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
The warning is not about all comparisons that are always true/false, only about
the case where this is "due to the limited range of the data type" (let me
stress **type**). Only the first of your examples has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89130
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
We already discussed this
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2018-09/msg7.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
Bug ID: 89134
Summary: A missing optimization opportunity for a simple branch
in loop
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52564
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Jan 31 03:37:16 2019
New Revision: 268412
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268412=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-01-30 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/52564
* io.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89133
Bug ID: 89133
Summary: bogus -Wcast-align=strict for a member of an aligned
struct or union
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89106
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89106
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Jan 31 02:33:58 2019
New Revision: 268411
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268411=gcc=rev
Log:
PR other/89106 - cast-to-union documentation incorrect w.r.t. lvalueness
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88761
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
The #c0 and #c2 testcases are already fixed, but the #c3 testcase still breaks,
so I'm going to treat this PR as being about that one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89132
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89132
Bug ID: 89132
Summary: missing -Wcast-align casting the address of a function
to a more aligned pointer type
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89129
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86379
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89124
--- Comment #4 from Thiago Macieira ---
Or permit the inlining if the function is also __artificial__. It's documented,
but I don't see anyone needing to use that besides gcc's own headers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89131
Bug ID: 89131
Summary: redundant -Wabsolute-value when -Wconversion is used
and vice versa
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89130
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
However, the code that this relocation replaces uses move_if_noexcept which is
also incorrect for weird allocators. So maybe those cases are already
incorrect.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89130
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89130
Bug ID: 89130
Summary: [9 Regression] std::vector relocation fails for types
with deleted move constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89130
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71617
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89129
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89129
Bug ID: 89129
Summary: [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wtype-limits warnings
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89128
Bug ID: 89128
Summary: Missing CTAD deduction guides for std::stack and
std::queue
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89127
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89127
Bug ID: 89127
Summary: missing -Wtype-limits for trivially false expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89126
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
In ILP32 it doesn't work for long either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88988
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 30 23:28:53 2019
New Revision: 268407
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268407=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/88988
* lambda.c (is_capture_proxy): Don't return true for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89126
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89126
Bug ID: 89126
Summary: missing -Wtype-limits for int variables
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89117
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89117
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60170
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89122
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Candidate patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-01/msg01756.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89121
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89096
--- Comment #10 from David Edelsohn ---
Protobufs didn't used to work on AIX. If it does, great.
CMake on AIX is broken. AIX behaves differently for export of global symbols,
yes, but -bexpall -- exporting all symbols -- is completely wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89096
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Paprocki from comment #8)
> David, -brtl and -bexpall are coming from CMake itself:
> https://gitlab.kitware.com/cmake/cmake/blob/master/Modules/Platform/AIX-XL.
> cmake
>
> *All*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89096
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Paprocki ---
David, -brtl and -bexpall are coming from CMake itself:
https://gitlab.kitware.com/cmake/cmake/blob/master/Modules/Platform/AIX-XL.cmake
*All* software (open-source and closed-source) using CMake as a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67531
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #7)
> What progress do you expect? IBM long double does not support non-default
> rounding. This will be fixed when PPC64LE long double defaults to IEEE 128
> bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89096
--- Comment #7 from David Edelsohn ---
Is protobufs even known to build on AIX?
Whoever wrote the link command for AIX didn't know what they were doing and
threw every option they could at the problem until it appeared to work. This
is wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89057
--- Comment #4 from Allan Jensen ---
While that change might have made things worse. The real problem is probably
that the registers for those instructions are loaded and stored using
intrinsics, so proper register allocation and combining cant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87246
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Jan 30 21:49:23 2019
New Revision: 268404
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268404=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-01-30 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/87246
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
--- Comment #6 from kargl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89096
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Paprocki ---
The source code for main.cc is found here:
https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/blob/master/src/google/protobuf/compiler/main.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89096
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Paprocki ---
Created attachment 45571
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45571=edit
g++-8 -S output for main.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89096
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Paprocki ---
This occurs while building a project that depends on the protobuf library. I'll
attach main.cc.s, and command lines are below. If I take the exact main.cc.o
compilation line and simply swap out GCC 8.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85481
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini ---
A better behaved testcase:
class a { ~a(); };
class b { a c; ~b() = default; };
class B { virtual ~B(); b d; };
template class E : B { };
Essentially, the ICE is triggered by the wrong use of 'template' -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89112
--- Comment #2 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm seeing this on both gcc-8-branch and trunk, but only with -mcpu=power9.
I'll figure out what happened here and get it fixed in trunk then back ported
to 8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89123
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 08:47:50PM +, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
>
> --- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
> This looks like a target issue, gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89124
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
We have (for a few years already) refused to inline if the callee and caller
disagree on the requested (-fsanitize=address related) sanitization flags:
static bool
sanitize_attrs_match_for_inline_p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
--- Comment #27 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Jan 30 20:52:08 2019
New Revision: 268403
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268403=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-01-30 Bill Schmidt
PR target/87064
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
This looks like a target issue, gcc does produce a call to sincos here. So
please specify your target precisely.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #17 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Jan 30 20:44:35 2019
New Revision: 268402
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268402=gcc=rev
Log:
PR fortran/88678
* config/fpu-glibc.h (support_fpu_trap):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 08:06:44PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
>
> --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> See pr31249.
>
Don't see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #16 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 06:33:52PM +, bergner at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
>
> --- Comment #14 from Peter Bergner ---
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
See pr31249.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fortran code used in harmonic analysis often contains lines
of form
p = cmplx(cos(x),sin(x)) ! compute exp(i*x) for real x
On platforms with a sincos(x, , ) routine the above should
be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
Bug ID: 89125
Summary: Misoptimization of converting sin(x) and cos(x) into
sincos(x,,)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89122
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89123
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For comparison, in pretty much the same build environment (20 days earlier)
with 8.2.1 20190109 I see
=== go tests ===
Running target unix/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89124
--- Comment #2 from Thiago Macieira ---
-fsanitize=address missing from the command-line in the previous comment. It
should be:
gcc -c -mavx2 -fsanitize=address test.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89119
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9/ Regression] |[7/8 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89119
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Jan 30 19:04:05 2019
New Revision: 268400
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268400=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/89119 - ICE with value-initialization in template.
* pt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89123
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||s390x-linux
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88892
--- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Not in 8.2, no, that was released half a year ago already. But 8.3, yes, it is
lined up for that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89124
--- Comment #1 from Thiago Macieira ---
Worse:
$ cat test.cpp
#include
#ifdef __GNUC__
__attribute__((no_sanitize_address))
#endif
void f(void *ptr)
{
_mm256_loadu_si256((__m256i *)ptr);
}
$ gcc -c -mavx2 test.cpp
[same errors]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89120
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
First there is the issue of iterator vs value, as in your other PR.
The performance of minmax depends a lot on the element type and the
distribution. The standard requires that we perform only 3n/2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #15 from Peter Bergner ---
My bad, I guess large_2.f90 has been failing for a while now (PR67531) and
isn't related to this bug or patches at all, so as far as I'm concerned, this
bug is resolved as fixed once the proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89106
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89124
Bug ID: 89124
Summary: __attribute__((no_sanitize_address)) interferes with
__attribute__((target(xxx)))
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89020
--- Comment #18 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Luke Robison from comment #17)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #8)
>
> > Luke, do you ever build gcc?
>
> I applied these patches to 8.2.0 and got the expected error message and
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #14 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #10)
> Can someone please test the patch in Comment #9 on powerpc? It should fix
> all failures, modulo ieee_10.f90 which is fixed by [1].
>
> [1]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89121
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
If you write:
auto mins = *std::min_element(f.begin(), f.end());
so that you ask for the value, the benchmark now says the perf is exactly the
same for the 2 versions. I would close this as invalid.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89123
Bug ID: 89123
Summary: Too many go test failures on s390x-linux
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48636
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45288
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33056
Bug 33056 depends on bug 45288, which changed state.
Bug 45288 Summary: Double initialization: Warn if the value is different
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45288
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89112
acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89122
Bug ID: 89122
Summary: bad fix-it hint for FLT_MAX when is
included
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89121
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89119
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88892
--- Comment #14 from Victor Stinner ---
> New Revision: 268083
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268083=gcc=rev
Great! Would it be possible to get a fix in GCC 8.2?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88857
--- Comment #7 from Will Benfold ---
I think it's not so much class vs struct: I get an ICE iff 'a' is private.
Just changing class -> struct stops the ICE, but then it comes back again if
you make 'a' private.
Similarly, with a class you can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #28 from Jakub Jelinek ---
#c27 now successfully bootstrapped where it previously failed, regtest still
pending.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89106
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
My concern is that the cast does not "create a compound literal": what it
creates is an object, more specifically, an unnamed temporary object in
automatic storage with unspecified lifetime [1]. A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89121
Bug ID: 89121
Summary: std::min_element (and max_element) 3.6 times slower
than hand written loop
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89120
Bug ID: 89120
Summary: std::minmax_element 2.5 times slower than hand written
loop
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88547
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67743
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88147
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #13 from Peter Bergner ---
All of the ieee_*.f90 tests and large_1.f90 seem to be working on
powerpc64le-linux now. However, I'm seeing a new execution test failure with
large_2.f90. I'll have a quick look at that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88857
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Indeed:
> class S { int a; };
> void foo (const S &, int);
>
> template
> void
> bar ()
> {
> foo ({});
> }
>
> With s/class/struct/ it doesn't ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88857
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51512
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86379
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89119
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46354
Luke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lukebenes at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #5 from
1 - 100 of 159 matches
Mail list logo
