https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49167
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89725
--- Comment #6 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> I think the issue is that the DDR is bogus - loop interchange computes
> data-refs
> for a deeper nest (including some outer loops) than it ends up doing
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89880
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Related to PR 86564.
This is due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_vexing_parse .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89880
Bug ID: 89880
Summary: compiles code that should not be compiled
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #7 from Erik Schnetter ---
I tried adding a fixinclude that #defines _Atomic to volatile if the system
header is included from C++, and this resolved the issue for me.
A possible implementation is described here
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89879
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89879
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also patches go to gcc-patches@ After reading
https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||schnetter at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89858
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://www.felixcloutier.com/x86/blsr
Says BMI1 is required.
Can you provide the output of /proc/cpuinfo on the host?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89879
Bug ID: 89879
Summary: GCC fails to build on macOS 10.14.4
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83531
Erik Schnetter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||schnetter at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89868
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually it comes from the shell.
e.g. from bash:
if ((WIFSTOPPED (show->status) == 0) &&
(WIFCONTINUED (show->status) == 0) &&
WIFCORED (show->status))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62207
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89860
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
The code is like:
for (int i = 0; i < m_vars_total; i++) {
// instead of m_vars[i].type.src we will use m_vars_extra[i].type_src
if (i < vars_total) {
..
if (m_vars[i].type.dst ==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89341
--- Comment #12 from JunMa ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #11)
> Removing the alias check seems correct to me. The same body alias patch was
> long and needed special casing those aliases on quite few places. I am not
> at all sure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89878
Bug ID: 89878
Summary: same specializations on a zero-initialized struct
object as a non-type parameter treated as distinct
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89868
--- Comment #4 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #2)
> > Ah that sounds possible. I imagine it is not GCC that would be the one that
> > controls the core dumping? Perhaps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89877
Vineet Gupta changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vgupta at synopsys dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89621
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] ICE with |[7/8 Regression] ICE with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89621
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 28 22:33:29 2019
New Revision: 270009
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270009=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/89621
* tree-inline.h (struct copy_body_data): Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81506
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
Thanks Martin. This reminds me that we should tell David that in some cases the
"waves" following the caret don't go on far enough. Or maybe he already knows
or maybe we should do that instead ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89877
Bug ID: 89877
Summary: [ARC] miscompilation due to missing cc clobber in
longlong.h: add_ss()/sub_ddmmss()
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89872
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58031
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89874
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89876
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89876
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89848
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89876
Bug ID: 89876
Summary: ICE in convert_like_real on decltype expression
involving string conversion to char*
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89848
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Mar 28 21:38:44 2019
New Revision: 270008
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270008=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/89848
* config/i386/i386.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66548
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Mar 28 21:32:11 2019
New Revision: 270007
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270007=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/66548 - Invalid class member access expression in decltype sometimes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81506
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Mar 28 21:20:18 2019
New Revision: 270006
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270006=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/81506 - Invalid declaration with decltype accepted
testsuite/ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81506
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66548
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89875
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89875
Bug ID: 89875
Summary: invalid typeof reference to a member of an incomplete
struct accepted at function scope
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82971
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57943
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
*** Bug 89874 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89874
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57943
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89874
Bug ID: 89874
Summary: invalid conversion accepted in decltype in a template
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89873
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r214396.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89873
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89873
Bug ID: 89873
Summary: internal compiler error: unexpected expression of kind
implicit_conv_expr
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89612
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] internal |[7/8 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89612
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Mar 28 20:24:48 2019
New Revision: 270005
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270005=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/89612 - ICE with member friend template with noexcept.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71796
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||link-failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65359
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
--- Comment #15 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Mar 28 19:33:22 2019
New Revision: 270004
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270004=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/89865
* config/i386/i386.md (RMW operation with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29670
Bug 29670 depends on bug 62176, which changed state.
Bug 62176 Summary: [OOP] Inconsistent resolution of GENERIC interface
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62176
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62176
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89848
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Mar 28 19:15:58 2019
New Revision: 270003
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270003=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/89848
* config/i386/i386.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89871
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89872
Bug ID: 89872
Summary: GCC does not generate read access to volatile compound
literal
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89871
Bug ID: 89871
Summary: Wall + designated initializers
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89836
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89836
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Mar 28 18:23:18 2019
New Revision: 270002
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270002=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/89836 - bool constant expression and explicit conversions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89867
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
processing_template_decl is false, but the type is still auto. Do we need to
treat all attributes like late ones, or just the late ones that way even when
!processing_template_decl and is_auto, something
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89867
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
Target|arm-none-eabi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #13)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> > Note, the r264897 change to the testcase was clearly bogus, because then the
> > testcase is really useless,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #11)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> I suggest we apply my LEA patch (that is a clear improvement), and
> recategorize the PR as a RA regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89853
--- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #6)
> Hi, the assembly of the most affected function does not change at all, just
> its offset (is 0x10 bytes bigger). Aligning the loops in the function a bit
> more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
--- Comment #11 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Note, the r264897 change to the testcase was clearly bogus, because then the
> testcase is really useless, the intent of the testcase was to check that all
> (but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
--- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> (this is -Os, so that is what matters), r264897 made the generated code
> worse, then r265398 reverted it to the previously generated code and r266385
> made it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, the r264897 change to the testcase was clearly bogus, because then the
testcase is really useless, the intent of the testcase was to check that all
(but the 8) peepholes did the right thing and there
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 89853, which changed state.
Bug 89853 Summary: Regression of 525.x264_r at -O2 (and generic tuning) on AMD
EPYC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89853
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89853
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89812
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 28 17:14:05 2019
New Revision: 270001
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270001=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c/89812
* gcc.dg/attr-aligned-3.c: Limit the test to known ELF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89868
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #2)
> Ah that sounds possible. I imagine it is not GCC that would be the one that
> controls the core dumping? Perhaps where ever that code is, it could just
> say "Core
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89853
--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> Just for the record, my Ryzen machine periodic tester probably improved due
> to the revision:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, but that is only because r264897 adjusted the expected counts from 8 to
47/57 :(.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77875
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, probably, but it doesn't seem useful for T{i} to do anything except bind a
reference of type T to i. Issue 1521 seems to be a problem with the wording,
such that it doesn't apply to references, but I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77875
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Doesn't this depend on the resolution of Core 1521 (still "drafting"), dealing
with T{expr} where T is a reference type? Which is what this PR is about:
void
f ()
{
int i = 42;
using T = int&;
T t =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> I don't see the testcase FAILing on i?86 though, just on x86_64, and there
> starting with Oct 2x (20th is still ok, 23rd fails, so likely r265398).
The testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68771
--- Comment #27 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Daniel Vollmer from comment #26)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #25)
> > (In reply to Daniel Vollmer from comment #24)
> > > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #23)
> > Sadly,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't see the testcase FAILing on i?86 though, just on x86_64, and there
starting with Oct 2x (20th is still ok, 23rd fails, so likely r265398).
Let me have a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 89785, which changed state.
Bug 89785 Summary: Incorrect "not a constant expression" error with switch
statement that returns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89785
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89785
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79022
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68771
--- Comment #26 from Daniel Vollmer ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #25)
> (In reply to Daniel Vollmer from comment #24)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #23)
> >
> > > My freshly-built 7.4 (bootstrapped with 10.1 xc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85968
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89870
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #2)
> Good point!
>
> Any header would be a good start... but as it is a CPP file being compiled
> by g++ perhaps g++ should even suggest std::abort() and ?
That's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89870
--- Comment #2 from Jonny Grant ---
Good point!
Any header would be a good start... but as it is a CPP file being compiled by
g++ perhaps g++ should even suggest std::abort() and ?
eg suggestion:
test.cpp: In function 'int main()':
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89785
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 28 14:47:47 2019
New Revision: 269995
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269995=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/89785
* constexpr.c (struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89870
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88066
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Matthias Kretz from comment #9)
> Created attachment 46049 [details]
> test case
>
> Let me present the counterargument. I.e. if I use -I. and have a file named
> as used internally by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89725
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Thu Mar 28 14:40:56 2019
New Revision: 269994
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269994=gcc=rev
Log:
optinfo-emit-json.cc: don't call get_fnname_from_decl (PR middle-end/89725)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88066
Matthias Kretz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kretz at kde dot org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52994
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
--- Comment #14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89870
Bug ID: 89870
Summary: C++ suggest header for abort()
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89725
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89725
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Candidate patch for the first part:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-03/msg01362.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89858
--- Comment #6 from Hans Buchmann ---
Created attachment 46048
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46048=edit
Disassemly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89725
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79022
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Mar 28 13:42:48 2019
New Revision: 269990
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269990=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c/79022 fix mismatch parameter order in declaratio
The declaration of
1 - 100 of 172 matches
Mail list logo
