https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89280
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92105
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91891
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91887
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90706
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90415
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91607
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89075
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.3
On 9/27/19 9:13 AM, luoxhu wrote:
> Thanks for your time of so many round of reviews.
You're welcome. One last request would be please to make
gimple_ic_transform a void function. See attached patch.
I'll remind the patch today to Honza.
Thanks,
Martin
diff --git a/gcc/value-prof.c
OK.
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 9:04 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> As noticed by Richi,
> FAIL: g++.dg/guality/pr55665.C -O2 line 23 p == 40
> FAIL: g++.dg/guality/pr55665.C -O2 line 23 p == 40
> FAIL: g++.dg/guality/pr55665.C -O3 -g line 23 p == 40
> FAIL: g++.dg/guality/pr55665.C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90938
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
I plan to submit a patch for GCC 10 and (hopefully) also GCC 9.x. What's the
cutoff for 9?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92174
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 02:14:55PM +, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92174
>
> --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment #1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91273
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91384
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91241
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91826
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.4
Hi.
We should not call to_gcov_type on a count that is uninitialized.
That's the case for a THUNK cgraph_node that we inline.
Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
Ready to be installed?
Thanks,
Martin
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-10-22 Martin Liska
PR
Status
==
GCC trunk is open for general development, stage 1. Stage 1
tentatively ends at the end of Saturday, Nov. 16th, after which
we enter general bugfixing, Stage 3 which is expected to last
two months, closing with finalizing the transition to git.
Please make sure to get features
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92166
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
On Arm we have both carry and borrow operations, but borrow is
essentially '~carry'. Of course, with boolean logic ~carry is also
1-carry.
GCC transforms
(1 - X - LTU (cc, 0))
into
(GEU (cc, 0) - X)
Now the former matches a real insn in Arm state, using the RSC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92177
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92173
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92173
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Oct 22 11:51:52 2019
New Revision: 277286
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277286=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-10-22 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92173
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90796
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] GCC: O2 |[8/9 Regression] GCC: O2 vs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90796
--- Comment #12 from Michael Matz ---
Author: matz
Date: Tue Oct 22 12:25:03 2019
New Revision: 277287
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277287=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix PR middle-end/90796
PR middle-end/90796
* gimple-loop-jam.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92177
Bug ID: 92177
Summary: [10 regression] gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-22.c FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91816
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92177
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91623
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91812
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90476
--- Comment #7 from Jonny Grant ---
Could someone confirm this please.
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 3:15 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 04:44:22PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > Perhaps we should bypass the existing virtual function call mechanism for
> > consteval, and instead find the complete object directly and call
> > non-virtually.
>
> Maybe,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92174
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #0)
> > Happens with UBSAN build in:
> >
> > $ ./xgcc -B.
> > /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr91802.f90
>
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 11:36 AM Michael Matz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> this was still collecting dust on my disk, so here it is. See the
> extensive comment in the patch for what happens, in short invariant IVs
> are affine but still have to be handled more conservative than other
> affine IVs in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91021
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90794
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91133
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92109
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92174
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 09:52:44AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Sounds good.
>
> > (the latter perhaps just if !processing_template_decl)?
>
> I'd think we would want to be consistent with other immediate
> invocations in template context.
The other ones just call it regardless of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90354
--- Comment #6 from vfdff ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > Which target? Which GCC version did work for you?
>
> Which target are you working on? Since you mark this as
Hi!
As noticed by Richi,
FAIL: g++.dg/guality/pr55665.C -O2 line 23 p == 40
FAIL: g++.dg/guality/pr55665.C -O2 line 23 p == 40
FAIL: g++.dg/guality/pr55665.C -O3 -g line 23 p == 40
FAIL: g++.dg/guality/pr55665.C -O3 -g line 23 p == 40
aren't a mere wrong-debug, but actually wrong-code
On Tue, 22 Oct 2019, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
> Hi Richi,
>
> See inline responses to your comments.
>
> On 11/10/2019 13:57, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Oct 2019, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
>
> >
> > +
> > + /* Keep track of vector sizes we know we can
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 1:59 PM Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 10/15/19 1:04 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Unlike the previous implementation, this doesn't invoke consteval function
> > already during parsing, but later on, so there aren't issues with say
> > consteval constructors or consteval in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89410
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89357
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90354
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||out of tree port
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91201
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91969
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška
Hi Richi,
See inline responses to your comments.
On 11/10/2019 13:57, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
Hi,
+
+ /* Keep track of vector sizes we know we can vectorize the epilogue
with. */
+ vector_sizes epilogue_vsizes;
};
please don't enlarge
The following patch fixes an ICE when vectorizing shifts with the
simplified SLP operand code by adjusting the type of the shift
argument in vectorizable_shift. I took the liberty to enable
more SLP shift vectorization for originally not "scalar" (same)
but constant shift amounts as we do as
Arm_carry_operation and arm_borrow_operation are duals: given that we
have a comparison that returns a result that relies solely in the carry
flag one is the inverse of the other. So there's no reason for
one to have a CC mode that the other does not have. This patch restores
that
On 21/10/2019 16:46, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 19/10/2019 17:17, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Yes, but combine should have removed the move in a 2->1 combination
already, if it is beneficial: both 18->7 and 7->22 should have combined
just fine. This also points to a potential target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92173
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92172
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92174
Bug ID: 92174
Summary: runtime error: index 15 out of bounds for type
'gfc_expr *[15]
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90938
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84536
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83972
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92170
--- Comment #5 from Austin Morton ---
Of course, I only provided it to show how I was generating the "expected"
results.
I wasn't sure what the purpose of splitting at "." was (in particular since I
think of GCC as a C/C++ compiler and the "."
C++20 removes a number of std::allocator members that have correct
defaults provided by std::allocator_traits, so aren't needed.
Several extensions including __gnu_cxx::hash_map and tr1 containers are
no longer usable with std::allocator in C++20 mode. They need to be
updated to use
My recent change to this file broke running the testsuite with
-std=c++98 because std::unordered_map isn't available. This fixes it.
* testsuite/util/testsuite_abi.h: Restore use of tr1/unordered_map
when compiled as C++98.
Tested x86_64-linux, committed to trunk.
commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91548
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Thanks.
Reduced (no templates, no lambda):
constexpr int& impl(const int ()[10], int index) {
return const_cast(array[index]);
}
struct A {
constexpr int& operator[](int i) { return impl(elems, i); }
* include/bits/memoryfwd.h (uses_allocator): Do not declare for C++98.
* testsuite/17_intro/names.cc: Check uses_allocator in C++98.
Tested powerpc64le-linux, committed to trunk.
This should be backported too, as it should never have been declared
for C++98.
commit
On 10/17/19 5:57 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi Kelvin,
>
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 03:28:45PM -0500, Kelvin Nilsen wrote:
>> This new pass scans existing rtl expressions and replaces them with rtl
>> expressions that favor selection of the D-form instructions in contexts for
>> which
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 6:22 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 04:36:07PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > As for CLEANUP_STMT, I've tried it (the second patch), but it didn't
> > > change
> > > anything, the diagnostics was still
> > > constexpr-dtor3.C:16:23: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92178
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 07:32:59PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> The effect of the intent(out) in assign is to deallocate the code on entry to
> assign. This is done with the if-block. The
Hi Michael,
> this was still collecting dust on my disk, so here it is. See the
> extensive comment in the patch for what happens, in short invariant IVs
> are affine but still have to be handled more conservative than other
> affine IVs in transformations that reorder instructions. Making
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92178
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Fuka ---
It would be really strange if even expressions like below were not possible.
implicit none
integer, allocatable :: a(:)
allocate(a, source=[1])
call assign(a, (min(a(1)**2,0)))
print *,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92178
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 09:03:42PM +, vladimir.fuka at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92178
>
> --- Comment #4 from Vladimir Fuka ---
> It would be really strange if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87851
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91826
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
Ping*2
Richard Sandiford writes:
> Ping
>
> To give a bit more rationale: some of the functions handled by
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-10/msg01002.html operate
> on structs and enums. There are already langhooks for creating the
> necessary struct types, but there's no direct way
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87851
--- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The following may be necessary in addition to the patch in comment#8:
Index: gcc/fortran/simplify.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/simplify.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87851
--- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Forget comment#8 and comment#9. The standard declares the default kind
of LEN_TRIM to be that of default integer.
On 22/10/19 22:40 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
C++20 removes a number of std::allocator members that have correct
defaults provided by std::allocator_traits, so aren't needed.
Several extensions including __gnu_cxx::hash_map and tr1 containers are
no longer usable with std::allocator in C++20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86248
--- Comment #6 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Bill,
If you look at pr44265, I took over the patch from Ian Sandoe and
fixed one or two of the wrinkles associated with it. I do not seem to
have given it as much thought as I
Committed as not so-obvious as I don't use UBSAN when fixing bugs.
The patch pushes the F2018:C822 check down a layer to prevent a segfault
when UBSAN is used.
2019-10-22 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/92174
* decl.c (attr_decl1): Move check for F2018:C822 from here ...
* array.c
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 10:41 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 09:55:06AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 1:59 PM Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > On 10/15/19 1:04 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > > > Unlike the previous implementation, this doesn't invoke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92106
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Oct 22 15:21:34 2019
New Revision: 277294
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277294=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/92106 - ICE with structured bindings and -Wreturn-local-addr.
Hi,
This is a backport from trunk for GCC9.
SVN revision: r277156.
Built and tested on arm-none-eabi (comparted
-march=armv7e-m+fp/-mfloat-abi=hard
to -march=armv7-r+fp.sp/-mfloat-abi=hard).
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-10-21 Mihail Ionescu
Backport from mainline
2019-10-18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92159
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92181
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91979
--- Comment #4 from Kamlesh Kumar ---
patch posted at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-10/msg01585.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92180
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Combine *does* combine setters of hard registers.
nonzero_bits is not reliable, it depends on the order things are tried in.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91363
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92181
Bug ID: 92181
Summary: initializer_list & string_view result in "modification
of '' is not a constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
attached patch file.
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 10:00 PM kamlesh kumar wrote:
>
> bootstrap and regtested on x86_64.
>
> Changelog:
> gcc
> --
> 2019-10-22 Kamlesh Kumar
>
> PR c++/91979 - mangling nullptr expression
> * mangle.c (write_template_arg_literal): Handle nullptr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85746
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90938
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
There is no cutoff for 9.x (well, in about 2 years from now the branch will be
closed), but the branch is used by people in the wild, so especially for
regressions from recent releases the sooner it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92174
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #3)
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 02:14:55PM +, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92174
> >
> > --- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92174
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
> Problem is that the compiler invokes an undefined behaviour for the source
file.
More precisely, it's an out of bounds array access.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92178
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Fuka ---
It also crashes with passing just a(1) instead of (a(1)) and when removing the
value attribute.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92179
Bug ID: 92179
Summary: [10 regression] r277288 causes ICEs compiling several
test cases
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91891
--- Comment #4 from Peter Bindels ---
For posterity,
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
template
std::future make_ready_future(T t);
struct y
{
intv;
std::function v2 = [this]() { v; };
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92062
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92174
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 02:56:01PM +, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92174
>
> --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
> > Problem is that the compiler
Hi,
I previously did not properly attach the diff.
Regards,
Mihail
On 10/22/2019 05:06 PM, Mihail Ionescu wrote:
Hi,
This is a backport from trunk for GCC9.
SVN revision: r277156.
Built and tested on arm-none-eabi (comparted
-march=armv7e-m+fp/-mfloat-abi=hard
to
bootstrap and regtested on x86_64.
Changelog:
gcc
--
2019-10-22 Kamlesh Kumar
PR c++/91979 - mangling nullptr expression
* mangle.c (write_template_arg_literal): Handle nullptr
mangling.
* testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nullptr27.C: Modify Test.
*
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 10:00:19PM +0530, kamlesh kumar wrote:
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/mangle.c b/gcc/cp/mangle.c
> index a9333b8..780da9f 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/mangle.c
> +++ b/gcc/cp/mangle.c
> @@ -3400,7 +3400,8 @@ write_template_arg_literal (const tree value)
>case INTEGER_CST:
>
101 - 200 of 259 matches
Mail list logo
