https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102153
Bug ID: 102153
Summary: Better expansion of __builtin_*_overflow should be
done
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: internal-improvement,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99591
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Looks fixed for GCC 11+.
signed2_overflow(short, short):
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
addw%si, %di
seto%al
ret
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99591
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.3.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97856
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97856
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Confirmed. basic-block reordering decides to duplicate the block:
Yes there are a few other bugs where we like to duplicate the return block I
have seen too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102152
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeffreyalaw at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102152
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102124
--- Comment #7 from Tomas Chang ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Created attachment 51377 [details]
> gcc12-pr102124.patch
>
> Untested fix.
After applying this patch on GCC 11.2.1 code base, I re-built GCC on my AARCH64
box
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102152
Bug ID: 102152
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected ssa_name,
have integer_cst in cprop_operand, at
tree-ssa-dom.c:1715
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79858
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79357
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||101926
--- Comment #4 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49631
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-01
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102151
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think the malloc needs to be at least the sizeof which is why it is
complaining.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102103
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102151
Niibe Yutaka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gniibe at fsij dot org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102151
Bug ID: 102151
Summary: Spurious warning by -Warray-bounds when allocating
with flexible array member
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102133
--- Comment #12 from Hongtao.liu ---
Fixed in GCC12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102133
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:508fa61b6319377e48cbee98da221aacd475fd10
commit r12-3276-g508fa61b6319377e48cbee98da221aacd475fd10
Author: liuhongt
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59615
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94522
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102150
Bug ID: 102150
Summary: Speculative execution of inline assembly causes divide
error
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89140
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>the configure script for libiberty finds that getrusage is not available but
>wait4 is.
Both should be there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62009
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build, ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70242
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I was able to do this on the trunk last week and it did not fail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52847
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51748
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 51390
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51390=edit
Patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96286
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36274
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think C++ modules will fix this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102149
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Started with r12-3222-g89f33f44addbf9853bc3e6677db1fa941713cb6c
> but got fixed with r12-3250-g67927342290c61d7e054430f1d7a7281f1f97fae
> So I think we just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102149
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102149
--- Comment #1 from Qirun Zhang ---
My bisection points to g:89f33f44addbf9853bc3e6677d
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: qrzhang at gatech dot edu
Target Milestone: ---
Seems to be a recent regression.
$ gcc-trunk -v
gcc version 12.0.0 20210831 (experimental) [master revision
5e57bacf6f3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100950
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e4cb3bb9ac11b4126ffa718287dd509a4b10a658
commit r12-3273-ge4cb3bb9ac11b4126ffa718287dd509a4b10a658
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55722
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 92193, which changed state.
Bug 92193 Summary: Poor diagnostics when a constexpr function call follows a
failed static_assert
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92193
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92193
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56985
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102148
Bug ID: 102148
Summary: ppc64le: homogeneous float arguments are not passed
correctly
Product: gcc
Version: 8.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102015
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77402
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102015
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
In https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/2021-August/053108.html I proposed
dropping C++98 support for the gnu-versioned-namespace, which would allow us to
fix this by using [[__no_unique_address__]].
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101739
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
For consistency (and to avoid reports like this one) we might want to uglify
them anyway. But it's not a correctness issue, just stylistic.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64399
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98421
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98421
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ef7becc9c8a48804d3fd9dac032f7b33e561a612
commit r12-3272-gef7becc9c8a48804d3fd9dac032f7b33e561a612
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102126
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I think that documentation should be changed to say it's primarily about
flags, not traps, with trapping being considered much more of a legacy
feature rather than something it's normally
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102107
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
/* If we need to save CR, put it into r12 or r11. Choose r12 except when
r12 will be needed by out-of-line gpr save. */
cr_save_regno = ((DEFAULT_ABI == ABI_AIX || DEFAULT_ABI == ABI_ELFv2)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96092
Andrew Psaltis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||apsaltis at vmware dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12672
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f1e7319956928712e8bf4893ebdfeeb6441099ee
commit r12-3271-gf1e7319956928712e8bf4893ebdfeeb6441099ee
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102145
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101739
--- Comment #2 from 康桓瑋 ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> These changes are not strictly necessary.
>
> "base" is a reserved name, because of move_iterator::base() etc.
>
> and "i" is a reserved name, because of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102140
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101739
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
These changes are not strictly necessary.
"base" is a reserved name, because of move_iterator::base() etc.
and "i" is a reserved name, because of operator""i() in .
So users cannot define those as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102074
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:763eb1f19239ebb19c0f87590a4f02300c02c52b
commit r12-3263-g763eb1f19239ebb19c0f87590a4f02300c02c52b
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102125
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> One common source of missed optimizations is gimple_fold_builtin_memory_op
> which has [...]
Yes, this is the source of the problem. I wonder if this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101865
--- Comment #16 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to wschmidt from comment #14)
> I disagree with that. You should use __VSX__ && _ARCH_PWR9 to check for
> P9 vector support, etc. The __POWERn_VECTOR__ things really are not
> great and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101865
--- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to HaoChen Gui from comment #9)
> For this example, let's suppose that we set mcpu=power8 and mno-vsx in the
> command line. Thus, _ARCH_PWR8 should be defined as mcpu=power8. But if the
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98421
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101865
--- Comment #14 from wschmidt at linux dot ibm.com ---
On 8/31/21 11:09 AM, bergner at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101865
>
> --- Comment #13 from Peter Bergner ---
> (In reply to Tulio Magno Quites
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98033
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98978
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53504
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Or maybe it's OK. The test is not trying to find out if threading works, only
whether TLS works. If creating or joining the thread fails, there is probably a
deeper issue. If creating and joining the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92193
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9aeadd8c319d5d940fa4dc91a393fc2959d27719
commit r12-3258-g9aeadd8c319d5d940fa4dc91a393fc2959d27719
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97912
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53504
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-31
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101865
--- Comment #13 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho from comment #12)
> There is a chance, that my previous comment is wrong with regards the
> generation of VSX instructions for Power8.
>
> I don't know what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102147
--- Comment #2 from David Edelsohn ---
Created attachment 51389
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51389=edit
Pre-processed subset of tree-vect-slp.c
$ gcc -O2 -fno-exceptions
produces different conflicts and register
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102107
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102147
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102147
Bug ID: 102147
Summary: IRA dependent on 32-bit vs 64-bit register size
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146
Bug ID: 102146
Summary: [11 regression] several test cases fails after
r11-8940
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31464
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102137
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102145
Bug ID: 102145
Summary: TKR mismatches with -pedantic:
-fallow-argument-mismatch does not degrade errors to
warnings
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102098
--- Comment #5 from Devourer Station ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Please attach the source files..
I'm sorry that the attachment suddenly went missing.
I reattached it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102098
--- Comment #4 from Devourer Station ---
Created attachment 51388
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51388=edit
preprocessed source file (xz compressed)
preprocessed source file (xz compressed)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102137
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102143
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101145
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eca730231d5493647bb1e508fb1f853ffee0e95a
commit r12-3255-geca730231d5493647bb1e508fb1f853ffee0e95a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102135
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw ---
A small change to the testcase shows that this is highly dependent on the
constrained registers from the calling convention.
uint64_t foo64(int dummy, const uint8_t *rData1)
{
uint64_t buffer;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102107
--- Comment #11 from Paul Clarke ---
This does produce the issue for me:
--
$ git checkout remotes/vendors/ibm/gcc-11-branch gcc-AT
$ mkdir gcc-AT-build
$ cd gcc-AT-build
$ ../gcc-AT/configure --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-libada
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102132
--- Comment #3 from Irfan Ariq ---
Okay, I will move it to sourceware bugzilla. Thank you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102130
--- Comment #2 from Irfan Ariq ---
Okay I will move it to the sourceware bugzilla. Thank you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100832
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102125
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Testcase was not quite complete. Extending it to:
typedef unsigned long long uint64_t;
typedef unsigned long uint32_t;
typedef unsigned char uint8_t;
uint64_t bar64(const uint8_t *rData1)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101723
--- Comment #15 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #14)
> I think you forgot to backport
> r12-2790-ga22b3e022c2b45047a28d901042888eb77620499 to gcc-9 ?
I don't think so. I think that patch collapsed away due
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93524
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92482
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-31
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102141
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101144
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-31
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102131
--- Comment #4 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #3)
> The issue may come from 'iv0 cmp iv1' transform:
>
>if (c -->if (c>=b) in-loop
> -->if (b<=c) in-loop
>
> c: {4, +, 3}
> b: {1, +, 1}
>
> if ({1, +, 1} <=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100089
Bug 100089 depends on bug 102142, which changed state.
Bug 102142 Summary: [12 Regression] ICE Segmentation fault since
r12-3222-g89f33f44addbf985
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102142
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102142
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102142
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:67927342290c61d7e054430f1d7a7281f1f97fae
commit r12-3250-g67927342290c61d7e054430f1d7a7281f1f97fae
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102139
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|riscv |riscv, x86_64-*-*
--- Comment #8 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102139
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Testcase triggering a segfault on x86_64 and showing the issue inside a single
BB with a function that doesn't return.
void __attribute__((noipa))
foo (int i)
{
if (i)
__builtin_exit (0);
}
typedef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102133
--- Comment #10 from Mikael Pettersson ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #2)
> But failed to configure for target mcore, i didn't find any reference in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html
>
> --target=mcore results in
> ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102131
--- Comment #3 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
The issue may come from 'iv0 cmp iv1' transform:
if (cif (c>=b) in-loop
-->if (b<=c) in-loop
c: {4, +, 3}
b: {1, +, 1}
if ({1, +, 1} <= {4, +, 3})
==> if ({1,+,-2} <= {4,+,0}) here, error
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
