https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65902
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65631
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65631
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Apr 28 12:35:30 2015
New Revision: 222524
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222524root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/65631
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65917
Bug ID: 65917
Summary: [6.0 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030922-2.c
scan-tree-dump-times dom1 if 2
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65902
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #2)
The standard headers should only be defining bool if stdbool.h has been
included. So this looks more like a build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65734
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Apr 28 14:43:48 2015
New Revision: 222529
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222529root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/65734
gcc/
* stor-layout.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50800
--- Comment #16 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Apr 28 14:43:54 2015
New Revision: 222530
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222530root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/50800
* tree.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65656
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Apr 28 14:43:59 2015
New Revision: 222531
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222531root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/65656
* constexpr.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65918
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65914
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
--- Comment #15 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi,
I am not entirely sure, the issue seems to be in lto-wrapper.
In lto-wrapper.c:run_gcc():
fdecoded_options, which are compiler options contains -mfpu=neon
decoded_options, which are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65918
J. W. Mitchell habanero_pizza at yahoo dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65914
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35415
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35415action=edit
Somewhat reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65917
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65918
Bug ID: 65918
Summary: Optimized code ( -O0) on 2-dim array iteration
incorrect
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65217
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65911
--- Comment #6 from tbsaunde at tbsaunde dot org ---
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 03:59:05AM +, trippels at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65911
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mkuvyrkov at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9360
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|pending |spam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9353
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|pending |spam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10531
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|pending |spam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65903
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51513
--- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Emil L from comment #3)
This optimization would be very interesting for interpreter implementators
that use a switch statement to dispatch the next instruction, when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
--- Comment #18 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35420
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35420action=edit
patch to override default options by options in object file
Hi,
The following untested
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65548
--- Comment #30 from Jürgen Reuter juergen.reuter at desy dot de ---
I can apply this patch on r222550 of
https://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-5-branch/
correct?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65896
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Apr 29 00:57:50 2015
New Revision: 222557
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222557root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/65896
* constexpr.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65896
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65922
Bug ID: 65922
Summary: Switch statement with __builtin_unreachable creates a
wild branch
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65876
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65922
Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65915
Bug ID: 65915
Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.target/i386/avx512f-vrndscalepd-2.c (internal
compiler error)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65914
Bug ID: 65914
Summary: [6 Regression] error: unrecognizable insn
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65871
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60333
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Apr 28 13:21:54 2015
New Revision: 222526
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222526root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/60333
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65915
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62097
Paul Waring paul at xk7 dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paul at xk7 dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65913
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is due to the changes for Bug 65033
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60333
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #10 from Jürgen Reuter juergen.reuter at desy dot de ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #9)
With the attached patch your small test case and the test suite runs
w/o segfault now. Furthermore does gcc6 bootstrap and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65916
Bug ID: 65916
Summary: Unnecessary floating-point instruction causes runtime
exception on PowerPC
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61645
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65871
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61645
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Apr 28 13:05:33 2015
New Revision: 222525
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222525root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/61645
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65902
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm-eabi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
--- Comment #19 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #18)
Created attachment 35420 [details]
patch to override default options by options in object file
Hi,
The following untested patch gives
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51513
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65922
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65922
Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65917
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65913
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65917
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65734
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65914
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Started with r222514 so possibly a latent issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11660
Eric Gallager egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #43 from James Greenhalgh jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to torvald from comment #37)
(In reply to James Greenhalgh from comment #35)
(In reply to torvald from comment #32)
(In reply to James Greenhalgh from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65918
--- Comment #3 from J. W. Mitchell habanero_pizza at yahoo dot com ---
Indeed. Apologies for the submission
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65923
Bug ID: 65923
Summary: False positive for warning about literal operator
suffix and using
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65917
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
We'll probably need to XFAIL this for now.
This is definitely a case where we were just getting lucky before and the new
code to canonicalize the comparison arguments causes us not to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #19 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
See for example:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.binutils.bugs/19841/focus=19855
When this thread is displayed in mutt the highlighted messages appears
in the wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
The rule certainly has nothing to do with whether the struct types are
defined inside the union definition, or defined outside and then used
inside via a tag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65871
--- Comment #4 from James Almer jamrial at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
Please see the patch, attached in Comment #2.
While I can see the use (and benefit) to model the patterns that also set CC
register
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #18 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
One thing I've noticed is that the emails to gcc-bugs now use the local time
of the user. So the sorting isn't correct anymore if people from different
time zones comment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #11 from Jürgen Reuter juergen.reuter at desy dot de ---
Here is the small test case for the ICE with the patch provided Andre
Vehreschild:
gfortran -c evaluators.f90
evaluators.f90:40:0:
.or. qn_mask_rest
1
internal
On Apr 27, 2015, at 9:10 PM, jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
Has anyone run into this issue on other architecture like MIPS, PPC?
Yes on both.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65912
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gmail dot com pinskia at gmail dot com ---
On Apr 27, 2015, at 9:10 PM, jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
Has anyone run into this issue on other architecture like MIPS, PPC?
Yes on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65910
--- Comment #4 from Caroline Tice cmtice at google dot com ---
Has anyone actually committed this fix? I'm not seeing it in my tree yet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65920
Bug ID: 65920
Summary: Not able to compile a code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65920
Imran imran.siddiqui at live dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65887
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65921
Bug ID: 65921
Summary: GFortran should use __builtin_mul_overflow when
checking allocation sizes
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65896
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Apr 28 21:27:17 2015
New Revision: 222549
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222549root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/65896
* constexpr.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65757
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 05:32:11PM +, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65757
--- Comment #9 from joseph at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65920
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65887
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Tue Apr 28 20:58:51 2015
New Revision: 222546
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222546root=gccview=rev
Log:
Remove ifn_va_arg ap fixup
2015-04-28 Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65757
--- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
I don't know what process Jakub and Tobias used (a) to identify relevant
files / changes in glibc and (b) to make all the changes to operate on
__float128
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65920
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65548
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35318|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65901
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Apr 28 08:36:50 2015
New Revision: 222515
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222515root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c/65901
* c-typeck.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65901
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65832
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Another example where the vectorizer thinks vectorization is profitable:
#define N 16
unsigned int out[N];
unsigned int in[N] = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65832
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65875
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
For h we get into the loop PHI handling code which drops to INF-1 if it
iterates
too much. The rest probably ripples down from that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
--- Comment #25 from Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Tue Apr 28 08:10:44 2015
New Revision: 222512
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222512root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-04-28 Thomas Preud'homme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65911
Bug ID: 65911
Summary: [6 Regression] r222508 breaks clang-tblgen
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65875
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I meant in the first loop.
But we handle:
int b, c, e;
long
foo (int x, int y)
{
long h = 0;
for (b = 0; b x; b++)
for (c = 0; c y; c++)
if (e)
h = 1;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65913
--- Comment #3 from yan12125 at gmail dot com ---
Sorry, but I don't quite understand. Does that mean for all the future versions
(5.2, 6.0, etc.) -latomic flag is necessary if atomicT::is_lock_free() is
used in my program?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65910
David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #20 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
I don't think this has anything to do with the timezone of the commenter. For
example the mail for comment #19 has the date Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:28:19 +
(which is correct), but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65757
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
Fixed in glibc (commit 7d0b2575416aec2717e8665287d0ab77826a0ade). I'd
advise merging to trunk GCC libquadmath all relevant glibc changes since
the last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65919
Bug ID: 65919
Summary: Regression - GCC 5.1 with options -g -std=c++14
fails to compile multiple lambdas used as default
function parameters
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65910
--- Comment #5 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dje
Date: Tue Apr 28 17:16:19 2015
New Revision: 222535
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222535root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-04-28 Dominique d'Humieres domi...@lps.ens.fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65704
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Making this work requires splitting mutex into smaller pieces so that
std::timed_mutex can depend on std::condition_variable, which depends on
std::mutex.
I'll come back to it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
--- Comment #16 from clyon at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #15)
I am not understanding why vfpv3-d16 appears in collect_gcc_options in
run_gcc().
Isn't this because you configured GCC --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55522
Orion Poplawski orion at cora dot nwra.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||orion at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65902
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
Well, I thought maybe it would not hurt to be more permissive...
At least math.h and stdlib.h include cyg/infra/cyg_type.h
which contains something like this:
#ifndef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #22 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Frédéric Buclin from comment #21)
Markus, did you change your timezone preference between comments 18 and 19?
If yes, which ones did you select?
No. But the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #23 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #22)
No. But the question makes no sense, because we're talking about mails that
bugzilla automatically sends to the bug mailing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #21 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net ---
Markus, did you change your timezone preference between comments 18 and 19? If
yes, which ones did you select?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #24 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Frédéric Buclin from comment #23)
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #22)
No. But the question makes no sense, because we're talking about mails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65882
Mikhail Maltsev maltsevm at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maltsevm at
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
