https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85957
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Monakov ---
Sorry, the above comment should have said 'b * 1e6' every time it said 'b'.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85957
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov ---
To expand a bit: DOM makes the small testcase behave as if 'b' and 'ib' are
evaluated twice:
* one time, 'b' is evaluated in precision matching 'a' (either infinite or
double), and 'ib' is evaluated to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85988
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85991
Bug ID: 85991
Summary: [Concepts] Template placeholder: ICE
cp_parser_lookup_name, at cp/parser.c:26223
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85990
Bug ID: 85990
Summary: Wrong TARGET_THREAD_SPLIT_STACK_OFFSET
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85989
Bug ID: 85989
Summary: Incorrect result for example involving unary minus in
a loop
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85981
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch submitted.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-05/msg01694.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85889
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|SUSPENDED
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85988
Bug ID: 85988
Summary: Incorrect offset of __private_tm
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libitm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85889
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85964
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] Compile|compile time hog w/ -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53281
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
My patch fails to account for ref-qualifiers on the member function, so needs
some improvement.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85986
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dj at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85971
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||85987
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85987
Bug ID: 85987
Summary: cstore does not work with a store in one of the
branches
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85986
Bug ID: 85986
Summary: config/rl78/rl78.c:984: bad test ?
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85984
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85975
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85976
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Perhaps cp_tree_equal should just handle USING_DECL like other DECLs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85981
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 07:53:33PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> I have a patch.
>
I have new patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67711
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue May 29 20:04:52 2018
New Revision: 260905
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260905=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/67445 - returning temporary initializer_list.
PR c++/67711
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67445
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue May 29 20:04:52 2018
New Revision: 260905
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260905=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/67445 - returning temporary initializer_list.
PR c++/67711
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48562
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue May 29 20:04:52 2018
New Revision: 260905
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260905=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/67445 - returning temporary initializer_list.
PR c++/67711
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85985
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Valentin Petrov from comment #3)
> Thanks, just to clarify. Do I understand correctly that the alignment
> requirement for bbb comes from __attribute__ (aligned) in aaa ?? (attribute
> makes a3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85985
--- Comment #3 from Valentin Petrov ---
Thanks, just to clarify. Do I understand correctly that the alignment
requirement for bbb comes from __attribute__ (aligned) in aaa ?? (attribute
makes a3 to be aligned, which makes aaa to be 64b aligned,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85981
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85985
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85985
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The alignment requirement for struct bbb is 64bytes but you cast a non aligned
data to that type.
This is undefined code since the type has an alignment requirement.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85985
Bug ID: 85985
Summary: GCC >= 5.6 unaligned movaps
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85961
--- Comment #4 from bki at hacon dot de ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #3)
> You'd need to disable IPA-RA after forcing -O2 with the pragma, i.e.:
>
> #pragma GCC optimize "O2"
> #pragma GCC optimize "no-ipa-ra"
Yes, this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85889
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85984
Bug ID: 85984
Summary: ICE in create_pseudo_cfg, at dwarf2cfi.c:2874
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85981
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85983
Bug ID: 85983
Summary: ICE in check_dtio_interface1, at
fortran/interface.c:4748
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85982
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
Comparison sample :
$ cat z2.f90
program p
type t
integer :: a
integer, external, pointer :: b
end type
end
$ gfortran-9-20180527 -c z2.f90
z2.f90:4:23:
integer, external,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85982
Bug ID: 85982
Summary: ICE in resolve_component, at fortran/resolve.c:13696
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85950
--- Comment #7 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue May 29 18:35:34 2018
New Revision: 260903
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260903=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/85950
* config/i386/i386.md (l2):
Enable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85981
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
Works with character(kind=1) :
$ cat z2.f90
program p
integer, allocatable :: arr(:)
integer :: stat
character(len=128, kind=1) :: errmsg = ' '
allocate (arr(3), stat=stat, errmsg=errmsg)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85981
Bug ID: 85981
Summary: ICE in gfc_trans_string_copy, at
fortran/trans-expr.c:6539
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85888
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue May 29 18:29:04 2018
New Revision: 260902
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260902=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/85888 - New test case c-c++-common/attr-nonstring-6.c from
r260541
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85888
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85889
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85980
Bug ID: 85980
Summary: suboptimal code for strncmp for powerpc64
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85977
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85976
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r251438.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85976
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85961
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85883
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85883
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue May 29 17:44:07 2018
New Revision: 260901
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260901=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/85883
* init.c (build_new): Handle deducing a class with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53281
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. comment 6 is the subject of PR 85958 which is really a different bug to
this one. This is about invalid member function calls on cv-qualified objects,
and 85958 is about invalid attempts to bind
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85957
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85963
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85952
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 29 17:07:57 2018
New Revision: 260899
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260899=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/85952
* init.c (build_aggr_init): For structured binding
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85931
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85979
Bug ID: 85979
Summary: Diagnostic says "__alignof" when the source says
"alignof"
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85793
bin cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85978
Bug ID: 85978
Summary: config/frv/frv.c: 3 * iffy code in switch
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85977
Bug ID: 85977
Summary: Incorrect handling of array reference size deduction
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85976
--- Comment #1 from matthew.hambley at metoffice dot gov.uk ---
Created attachment 44207
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44207=edit
Processed source file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85976
Bug ID: 85976
Summary: ICE in cp_tree_equal when building Blitz. May be
nested templates.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85975
Bug ID: 85975
Summary: Incorrect size for spread array
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85974
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
In match.pd
(simplify
- (pointer_diff (convert?@2 @0) (convert?@3 ADDR_EXPR@1))
+ (pointer_diff (convert?@2 @0) (convert1?@3 ADDR_EXPR@1))
(that is, we can have only one cast, not just 0 or 2)
and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85950
--- Comment #6 from Allan Jensen ---
Btw, I have tested and the patch works for my cases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85974
Bug ID: 85974
Summary: Failure to optimize difference of two pointers into a
compile time constant
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85960
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85970
Jose Dapena Paz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|VERIFIED
--- Comment #3 from Jose
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85960
--- Comment #3 from Gianni Tedesco ---
Both gcc-7.3 and gcc-8 from ubuntu on x86-64:
gcc version 8.0.1 20180414 (experimental) [trunk revision 259383] (Ubuntu
8-20180414-1ubuntu2)
gcc version 7.3.0 (Ubuntu 7.3.0-16ubuntu3)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85960
--- Comment #2 from Gianni Tedesco ---
Both gcc-7.3 and gcc-8 from ubuntu on x86-64:
gcc version 8.0.1 20180414 (experimental) [trunk revision 259383] (Ubuntu
8-20180414-1ubuntu2)
gcc version 7.3.0 (Ubuntu 7.3.0-16ubuntu3)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85973
Bug ID: 85973
Summary: [[nodiscard]] shall emit a warning for unused
anonymous variable
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85964
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
For the FSM part since we walk the whole function for _each_ control stmt name
this analysis part, find_jump_threads_backwards (basic_block bb, bool speed_p),
is quadratic in the number of BBs.
There's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85964
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, it's not this part of CFG cleanup but the remove_edge_and_domiated_blocks
call in cleanup_control_expr_graph. With the reduced testcase we call it
around
2000 times.
The FSM thing of course is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85970
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82522
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jose.dapena at lge dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85971
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85759
--- Comment #21 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue May 29 12:11:21 2018
New Revision: 260895
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260895=gcc=rev
Log:
libgcov: report about a different timestamp (PR gcov-profile/85759).
2018-05-29
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85972
Bug ID: 85972
Summary: cr16/predicates.md:163: bad if test ?
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85971
Bug ID: 85971
Summary: Really Simple "If" with one function call inside is
not optimized efficiently
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85970
Jose Dapena Paz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
--- Comment #1 from Jose
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85970
Bug ID: 85970
Summary: Cannot move a std::unique_ptr to insert into a map
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85918
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 29 11:58:24 2018
New Revision: 260893
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260893=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/85918
* tree.def (VEC_UNPACK_FIX_TRUNC_HI_EXPR,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85969
Bug ID: 85969
Summary: avr/gen-avr-mmcu-specs.c:56: unused function ?
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85965
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
There's nothing that can be done here. The error comes from the library (not
the compiler) and there's no way the compiler can possibly say "the static
assertion would have passed if the __is_invocable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85968
Bug ID: 85968
Summary: gcc/config/arc/arc.c:9805: bad test ?
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85961
--- Comment #2 from bki at hacon dot de ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> To me it shoulds you are messing with the ABI behind GCCs back.
True.
I'd still argue that the SysV-ABI suggests that a caller would need to save and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83009
avieira at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85961
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85964
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85958
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85964
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.2
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85953
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85960
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85964
--- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha ---
The original testcase looked like this:
int t8;
void
il (void)
{
int uu = 8;
do
{
int yq = 8;
do
{
t8 /= (t8 < 2) ? 1 : 3;
--yq;
}
while (yq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85956
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.0 |8.2
Summary|[9 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85955
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85950
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Allan Jensen from comment #4)
> Btw, I found this while trying to figure out why std::round() wasn't also
> optimized to a single roundss instruction, is that just a missing
> optimization or is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85954
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85953
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85953
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Confirmed, started with r228368.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85954
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85956
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
