https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9723
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16996
Bug 16996 depends on bug 9723, which changed state.
Bug 9723 Summary: With -Os optimization increases size if the loop contains
array element access
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9723
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89602
Bug ID: 89602
Summary: Missing AVX512 intrinsics
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89601
Bug ID: 89601
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault (in resolve_component)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89598
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89598
--- Comment #4 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Wed Mar 6 05:02:16 2019
New Revision: 269411
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269411=gcc=rev
Log:
PR go/89598
compiler: use GMP_RNDN rather than MPFR_RNDN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88588
--- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha ---
Obviously, #pragma can be replaced w/ __attribute__ ((simd)) which is supported
since gcc 6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87769
--- Comment #8 from Mateusz Zych ---
Created attachment 45901
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45901=edit
Script creating standalone GNU toolchain for C++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87769
--- Comment #7 from Mateusz Zych ---
Hi Joseph, ;)
Thank you very much for your advice - it was really helpful!
I've managed to implement a script creating standalone GNU toolchain for C++:
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89478
--- Comment #3 from SztfG at yandex dot ru ---
Another testcase:
int test4 = []() constexpr {int a = a; a = 5; return a;}();
GCC is able compile this, so it "think" this is valid constexpr lambda, but
anyway doing this:
_GLOBAL__sub_I_test4:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89411
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89576
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86969
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] ICE (in|[8 Regression] ICE (in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86485
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89593
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89593
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 5 22:41:39 2019
New Revision: 269405
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269405=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libgfortran/89593
* caf/single.c (_gfortran_caf_sendget_by_ref):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88529
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88568
--- Comment #16 from jon_y <10walls at gmail dot com> ---
I'll try testing over the weekends.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86485
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Mar 5 22:20:41 2019
New Revision: 269403
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269403=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/86485 - -Wmaybe-unused with empty class ?:
The problem in this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89538
Taewook Oh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|7.3.0 |8.3.0
Summary|[7.3.0] GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29843
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> This doesn't seem a very useful meta-bug. Every bug with Component=c++ and
> Keywords=rejects-valid is a standard conformance issue.
>
> What's the point of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40883
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Roland Illig from comment #2)
> I don't know how to add these bugs to the "Depends on" field, therefore I'm
> listing them here. Could it be that a mere reporter cannot do this?
>
> bug 79645
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71203
--- Comment #9 from Harald Anlauf ---
Patch submitted for the character-related issues:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-03/msg00017.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89598
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89571
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
Seriously, I spent quite a bit of time today on this issue and, all in all,
barring much more invasive changes, I think that not setting *spec_p to
error_mark_node when maybe_instantiate_noexcept returns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89598
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89586
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
as long as IMP is not used to call the function
you could try to define IMP as "void (*)(void)",
that would reliably suppress the warning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89598
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Tue Mar 5 19:41:42 2019
New Revision: 269399
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269399=gcc=rev
Log:
PR go/89598
compiler: use GMP_RNDN rather than MPFR_RNDN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89600
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89600
Bug ID: 89600
Summary: rejects-valid on dependent block-scope using
declaration
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585
--- Comment #13 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12)
> This is wrong too since some of what -fstrict-overflow did was enabled at
> -O1 (and -O2) before hand; just the option was added for GCC 4.2.0 and only
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #11)
>
> That doesn't mean it's acceptable to change how that's handled in a minor
> release. The whole concept of a release series doesn't make sense if you
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89599
Bug ID: 89599
Summary: C-style function-pointer-to-void* cast is handled
inconsistently
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585
--- Comment #11 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #10)
> 1) It wasn't defined behaviour before, so nothing changed in that regard.
> Many changes changes behaviour on invalid code. Not all invalid code gets
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47093
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86485
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've tried:
--- gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c.jj 2019-02-18 20:48:37.49912 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c2019-03-05 19:03:17.076410253 +0100
@@ -709,6 +709,16 @@ cp_gimplify_expr (tree *expr_p,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89557
--- Comment #8 from Jan Ziak (http://atom-symbol.net) <0xe2.0x9a.0x9b at gmail
dot com> ---
Testcase (a.cc) benchmark results. See attached Makefile for further
information about compiler options.
Machine 1: Ryzen 5 1600 Six-Core Processor:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47117
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47093
Bug 47093 depends on bug 47117, which changed state.
Bug 47117 Summary: unfulfillable case in config.gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47117
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47093
Bug 47093 depends on bug 52551, which changed state.
Bug 52551 Summary: i686-interix3: winnt.c:400:8: error:
‘flag_writable_rel_rdata’ undeclared
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52551
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52551
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54707
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47093
Bug 47093 depends on bug 54707, which changed state.
Bug 54707 Summary: picochip.c:332:985: error:
‘default_stabs_asm_out_constructor’ was not declared in this scope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54707
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89557
--- Comment #7 from Jan Ziak (http://atom-symbol.net) <0xe2.0x9a.0x9b at gmail
dot com> ---
Created attachment 45898
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45898=edit
Makefile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89557
--- Comment #6 from Jan Ziak (http://atom-symbol.net) <0xe2.0x9a.0x9b at gmail
dot com> ---
Created attachment 45897
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45897=edit
a.cc: compilable testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89598
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Summary|go frontend fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89598
Bug ID: 89598
Summary: go frontend fails to build against mpfr 2.4.2
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89597
Bug ID: 89597
Summary: Inconsistent vector calling convention on windows with
Clang and MSVC
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40883
--- Comment #2 from Roland Illig ---
I don't know how to add these bugs to the "Depends on" field, therefore I'm
listing them here. Could it be that a mere reporter cannot do this?
bug 79645
bug 79646
bug 79846
bug 79858
bug 79869
bug 79870
bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89587
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80058
--- Comment #1 from Roland Illig ---
Before fixing these bugs, the program that checks these instances should be
checked in and be run each time before the GCC code is sent to the translators.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89587
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 5 17:25:01 2019
New Revision: 269396
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269396=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/89587
* config/rs6000/t-linux (MULTIARCH_DIRNAME): Set to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29843
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This doesn't seem a very useful meta-bug. Every bug with Component=c++ and
Keywords=rejects-valid is a standard conformance issue.
What's the point of this one?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89588
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
#pragma GCC unroll and -fno-tree-loop-optimize? Seriously?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56187
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39201
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67118
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29843
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56075
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52778
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86952
--- Comment #18 from Martin Liška ---
I'm working on a more complex test-case generator. I'll post results tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47093
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43334
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2012-03-13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
1) It wasn't defined behaviour before, so nothing changed in that regard.
Many changes changes behaviour on invalid code. Not all invalid code gets
a diagnostic.
2) Incompatible clang behaviour on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49469
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40883
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89590
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] ICE in |[7/8 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43473
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89590
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 5 16:22:16 2019
New Revision: 269392
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269392=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/89590
* builtins.c (maybe_emit_free_warning): Punt if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36003
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22568
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|26914 |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26914
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89596
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89590
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
In reply to bug 89566 comment #5, one strategy is to do the same thing that's
already done for built-ins (possibly implicitly) declared with an incompatible
prototype: treat invalid calls as ordinary ones.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89596
--- Comment #1 from jleahy+gcc at gmail dot com ---
This only happens with -std=c++17, without -std=c++17 the code fails to
compile.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89593
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87378
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20369
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2007-05-17 17:50:53 |2019-3-5
--- Comment #4 from Steven
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89596
Bug ID: 89596
Summary: [8 regression] Multiple templated conversion operators
result in compilation error
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17652
Bug 17652 depends on bug 20211, which changed state.
Bug 20211 Summary: autoincrement generation is poor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20211
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23111
Bug 23111 depends on bug 20211, which changed state.
Bug 20211 Summary: autoincrement generation is poor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20211
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29842
Bug 29842 depends on bug 20211, which changed state.
Bug 20211 Summary: autoincrement generation is poor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20211
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20211
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|steven at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89498
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89222
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
Summary|[7/8/9 regression] ARM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89570
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89570
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 5 15:05:07 2019
New Revision: 269391
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269391=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/89570
* match.pd (vec_cond into cond_op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89222
--- Comment #9 from Wilco ---
Author: wilco
Date: Tue Mar 5 15:04:01 2019
New Revision: 269390
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269390=gcc=rev
Log:
[ARM] Fix PR89222
The GCC optimizer can generate symbols with non-zero offset from simple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89594
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89594
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 5 14:57:12 2019
New Revision: 269389
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269389=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-03-05 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/89594
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89247
Bug 89247 depends on bug 89594, which changed state.
Bug 89594 Summary: [9 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in
gsi_for_stmt(gimple*))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89594
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89549
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> Created attachment 45877 [details]
> test-case
Thanks; I'm able to see the behavior with that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85762
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Do you really want to match type of any field whatsoever, or better look for
> the type of a field at the particular position?
I was thinking about exactly this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326
--- Comment #60 from Richard Biener ---
PRE is all find_base_term exploding ...
The LIM case is all store_motion () which is quadratic and the only
user of the quadratic in memory all_refs_stored_in_loop. The latter
would be reasonably easy to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87148
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85762
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Do you really want to match type of any field whatsoever, or better look for
the type of a field at the particular position?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89480
--- Comment #3 from Danila Kutenin ---
Also not sure if this should compile. But if change Foo{} to static_cast
all the compilers compile.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89480
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89487
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 5 13:38:59 2019
New Revision: 269388
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269388=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/89487
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr89487.c: Include
1 - 100 of 179 matches
Mail list logo
