https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88660
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Hirsch ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #4)
> Fixed on the trunk for gcc-10.
Thanks :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #29 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I think this last patch above fixes the last adjustment needed. I could be
wrong I suppose. Is this ready to close?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92099
--- Comment #5 from 孙晅 ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #4)
> How is this type-dependent? id is value-dependent, but not type-dependent:
> it has type E. This seems like a valid (though optional) diagnostic.
But since id is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93522
Bug ID: 93522
Summary: f951: internal compiler error: in gfc_release_symbol,
at fortran/symbol.c:3121
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93492
Fangrui Song changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i at maskray dot me
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93521
Bug ID: 93521
Summary: 40% slower in O2 than O1 (tree-pre)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93520
Bug ID: 93520
Summary: Compilation of Python 3.9 with gcc 10 and -fanalyzer
fails with internal compiler error
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65249
Rich Felker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugdal at aerifal dot cx
--- Comment #27
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92169
--- Comment #4 from Richard Smith ---
Aha! godbolt.org implicitly adds -g to its command line. Try that; that causes
a crash for this testcase for me with GCC 9.2.1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93519
Bug ID: 93519
Summary: bogus -Wrestrict for strcpy(d, s) call guarded by d !=
s
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93519
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93356
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93356
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e978955dd720d5cc0e5141a1e9b943a3cc41
commit r10-6361-ge978955dd720d5cc0e5141a1e9b943a3cc41
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92424
Fangrui Song changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i at maskray dot me
--- Comment #8 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93457
--- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha ---
It's probably a duplicate of PR93511 now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93440
--- Comment #4 from ikonomisma at googlemail dot com ---
I can reproduce this on both x86_64 and AArch64 Ubuntu 19.10.
According to an answer to my question on stack overflow
(https://stackoverflow.com/a/59995702/3185968), using std::transform
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91465
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
This is the fix, thought I recall it broke something. But we want to use fold_
here because we can have a non-dependent template code like CAST_EXPR.
--- a/gcc/cp/typeck2.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/typeck2.c
@@ -981,7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93518
Bug ID: 93518
Summary: missing warning on a possible overflow by sprintf %s
with an allocated argument
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91320
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93517
Bug ID: 93517
Summary: bogus -Wrestrict on sprintf with unknown strings
bounded by array size
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14179
--- Comment #80 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #77)
> So the "low hanging fruit" remaining is reshape_init_array copying the whole
> array even if not necessary.
>
> INTEGER_CSTs still account for most of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90275
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93125
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93496
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk by r266893 for PR 86669, which doesn't seem related.
That change was backported to the gcc-8 branch as r267702 for GCC 8.3 which
doesn't explain how it was fixed for GCC 8.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88660
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] Invalid |[8/9 Regression] Invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88660
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f9eb0973edb2b4eed4cdbba7105b8af7afe5b547
commit r10-6360-gf9eb0973edb2b4eed4cdbba7105b8af7afe5b547
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Thu Jan 30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93501
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93516
Bug ID: 93516
Summary: [10 regression] ICE in verify_sra_access_forest, at
tree-sra.c:2342
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92434
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|noexcept couldn't be|[DR 2355] noexcept couldn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92434
--- Comment #5 from Nikita Kniazev ---
> but does [temp.deduct] actually require that this works?
Judging by CWG 2355 it does not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92434
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
That should probably be
+ if (spec && TREE_PURPOSE (spec) && deducible_expression (TREE_PURPOSE
(spec)))
Note that clang fails if noexcept(B) is changed to e.g. noexcept(!B).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92434
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
To match clang we could use
--- a/gcc/cp/pt.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/pt.c
@@ -21470,6 +21470,12 @@ uses_deducible_template_parms (tree type)
for (; parm; parm = TREE_CHAIN (parm))
if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92434
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Extended testcase:
template
void foo_false(void(*)() noexcept(B))
{
static_assert (!B);
}
template
void foo_true(void(*)() noexcept(B))
{
static_assert (B);
}
void f();
void fn() noexcept;
void bar()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93384
--- Comment #27 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5fb07870fa4c86f529930bae76689ed5bdfcb192
commit r10-6359-g5fb07870fa4c86f529930bae76689ed5bdfcb192
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93505
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:56b92750f83724177d2c6eae30c208e935a56a37
commit r10-6358-g56b92750f83724177d2c6eae30c208e935a56a37
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70682
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93514
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
> There is no tail padding at ax2.a + 3, it's just past the end of the the
> four-byte object because ax2.a is at offset 1.
You're right, I was convinced I saw int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79096
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93515
Bug ID: 93515
Summary: OpenMP target teams distribute parallel for with
defaultmap not mapping correctly
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90377
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2019-05-07
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91320
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Created attachment 47744
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47744=edit
gzipped testcase that should work with gcc-10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91320
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93514
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
There is no tail padding at ax2.a + 3, it's just past the end of the the
four-byte object because ax2.a is at offset 1.
-Warray-bounds takes tail padding into consideration by calling
component_ref_size().
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92319
Edward Diener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eldlistmailingz@tropicsoft.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33989
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WORKSFORME |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92402
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Not a regression though, so I'll leave it for GCC 11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92402
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Even shorter:
int a[1];
void f() {
[]() -> decltype(({auto&& [x] = a; 0;})) { return 0; };
}
clang++ compiles it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93514
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89129
Bug 89129 depends on bug 82521, which changed state.
Bug 82521 Summary: [8/9 Regression] No -Wtype-limits warning when using
templates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82521
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82521
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
--- Comment #41 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #38)
> This is better:
Complete revised testcase:
#ifdef USE_STD
#include
using std::optional;
#else
using size_t = decltype(sizeof(1));
inline void *operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92194
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||malcolm.parsons at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 92194, which changed state.
Bug 92194 Summary: [9/10 Regression] maybe-uninitialized false positive with
c++2a since r9-84-gcdc184174ce56df1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92194
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82521
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4dd468a042e19ef0fdbb1c53ca4060d4cb4972c5
commit r10-6357-g4dd468a042e19ef0fdbb1c53ca4060d4cb4972c5
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91212
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Jason, do you want to change anything here? Though clang/icc/msvc++ seem to
choose #1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93514
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91465
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Another test:
enum class error {};
template
void afunction(F) {
error{char(0)};
}
93513.C: In function ‘void afunction(F)’:
93513.C:4:16: internal compiler error: unexpected expression ‘(char)(0)’ of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93513
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91465
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andij.cr at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93513
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93514
Bug ID: 93514
Summary: missing warning on a strlen with a negative or just
past-the-end offset
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92587
--- Comment #4 from DIL ---
Sorry, I was removing unnecessary dependencies in order to reduce the
reproducer source size, but forgot to remove PRIVATE declaration for the
deleted procedures. Now fixed. It builds with gfortran-8.x but produces
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92587
--- Comment #3 from DIL ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> For older GCC 8 I see:
>
> tensor_recursive.F90:738:36:
>
> private TensBodyGetDataDescr
> 1
> Error: Symbol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92587
--- Comment #2 from DIL ---
Created attachment 47742
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47742=edit
Updated ICE reproducer
Fixed build issues for gfortran-8. Builds with gfortran-8.x but produces ICE
with gfortran-9.x.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84050
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-01-26 00:00:00 |2020-1-30
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93513
Bug ID: 93513
Summary: internal compiler error internal compiler error:
unexpected expression ‘(char)(e)’ of kind cast_expr
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92111
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93512
Bug ID: 93512
Summary: Introduce rotate_truncation_mask
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92749
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92789
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93501
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Benson ---
PR87103 is now resolved, which should also solve this problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93473
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Benson ---
PR87103 is now resolved, which should also solve this problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91773
Bug 91773 depends on bug 87103, which changed state.
Bug 87103 Summary: [OOP] ICE in gfc_new_symbol() due to overlong symbol name
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87103
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87103
Andrew Benson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93505
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87103
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Benson :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:004ac7b780308dc899e565b887c7def0a6e100f2
commit r10-6356-g004ac7b780308dc899e565b887c7def0a6e100f2
Author: Andrew Benson
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93496
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Justin LaPolla from comment #2)
> 3. My current project requires that we compile with GCC 8.1.0. To avoid this
> bug, we are disallowing virtual inheritance in our code by compiling with
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93384
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47741
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47741=edit
gcc10-pr93384.patch
Untested fix (only the make localalias name unique part, not the
ipa-pure-const.c change).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93511
Bug ID: 93511
Summary: ICE in make_region_for_type analyzing zlib/gzwrite.c
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91212
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Happens with a class too:
struct T { int i; };
struct X {
X(T&) { } // #1
X(const T&) { __builtin_abort (); } // #2
};
X
fn ()
{
T buf;
return buf;
}
int
main()
{
X c = fn ();
}
is it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93106
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91913
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Is the above what you'd like to see or do you want something else?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93416
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92570
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91824
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93388
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Looks like "make BOOT_CFLAGS='-fanalyzer' bootstrap" could also be used, but
it's nice to have a way to do this via configure flags.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92570
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93505
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #13)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> > > and so I'd say even if we just don't fix expand_binop,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93505
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #13)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> > and so I'd say even if we just don't fix expand_binop, this shows an
> > optimization opportunity for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93505
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> and so I'd say even if we just don't fix expand_binop, this shows an
> optimization opportunity for the rs6000 backend
> if the rotlw instruction only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93505
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> Created attachment 47740 [details]
> gcc10-pr93505.patch
>
> Untested combiner fix. IMHO even when we fix expand_binop we want it
> anyway, because we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92323
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 92323, which changed state.
Bug 92323 Summary: bogus -Warray-bounds after unrolling despite
__builtin_unreachable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92323
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92323
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:97b40c39208e384fd3ead463b85cddda9e55a375
commit r10-6353-g97b40c39208e384fd3ead463b85cddda9e55a375
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92415
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92380
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93505
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As for the expand_binop bug, if I fix it like:
--- gcc/optabs.c.jj 2020-01-12 11:54:36.690409230 +0100
+++ gcc/optabs.c2020-01-30 16:05:43.520649234 +0100
@@ -1226,16 +1226,22 @@ expand_binop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93498
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93501
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
1 - 100 of 258 matches
Mail list logo
