https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
--- Comment #3 from t.sprodowski at web dot de ---
Octave 4.2.2: ans = 2.6284e-20 + 4.2924e-04i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #11)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #8)
> > mov r4, r0
> > cmp r4, #0
>
> Why does it copy r0 to r4 and then compare r4? On more modern
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #8)
> push{r4, lr}
> mov r4, r0
> cmp r4, #0
Why does it copy r0 to r4 and then compare r4? On more modern machines it
is faster to compar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80960
--- Comment #19 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #18)
> Hmm, so if we'd have numbered stmts in an EBB we could check the
> distance between set and use and not combine when that gets too big?
Yeah. Or we c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #41 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Seeing that the code in your examples can be expressed as a bitfield insert
requires that combine sees that only the low 8 bits of reg 93 can be non-zero,
by the way. It usually does not know this. It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #40 from Segher Boessenkool ---
You'll get much better results if you don't use insv in your machine
description; writing it with the input and output separate (and then
using a "0" constraint) is much friendlier to the optimisers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84382
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 11:15:30PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
>
> We could add
>
> #define GFC_STD_OPT_GNU03 (GFC_STD_OPT_F03 | GFC_STD_GNU)
> #define GFC_STD_OPT_GNU08 (GFC_STD_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89993
Bug ID: 89993
Summary: Inconsistent incoming stack boundary
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89986
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87431
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89950
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89968
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
The alignment is respected for members of other types than char so the order of
the attributes doesn't seem to matter here (it does matter in pr89950):
$ cat pr89968-2.c && gcc -S -O2 -Wall -fdump-tree-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84382
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 10:24:15AM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84382
>
> --- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargl from com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89981
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at kernel dot
crashing.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89992
Bug ID: 89992
Summary: Vectorizer is very sensitive to function calls
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: midd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87145
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] Implicit |[7/8 Regression] Implicit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87145
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Apr 5 21:22:40 2019
New Revision: 270178
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270178&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/87145 - bogus error converting class type in template ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89925
--- Comment #2 from Neil Carlson ---
Right, when I said it failed on 8, I had misunderstood my colleague; he had
only tried 9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89980
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Component|bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
--- Comment #1 from t.sprodowski at web dot de ---
Created attachment 46095
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46095&action=edit
Source file
Source file to illustrate this bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89980
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Apr 5 19:49:38 2019
New Revision: 270177
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270177&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/89980 - pointer initialization with empty string folded to z
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
Bug ID: 89991
Summary: Complex numbers: Calculation of imaginary part is not
correct
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89981
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Reduced test case:
program main
call bar(i)
end program main
subroutine foo
entry bar(i)
end subroutine foo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89990
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||88058
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55591
--- Comment #11 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de ---
Am 05.04.19 um 18:20 schrieb dominiq at lps dot ens.fr:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55591
>
> --- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
>> Testing the updated patch
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89923
--- Comment #4 from Tom Honermann ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #3)
> But the precedent with wchar_t is that the type of the format string
> determines the type of the %s arguments. I'm not sure if that's a good
> precedent, but i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89990
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-9/porting_to.html
-fsantizier=address is able to find these uses after escaping the scope.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89990
--- Comment #1 from Eric Blake ---
Other references to compound initializers going out of scope and causing
problems:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/47691857/lifetime-of-a-compound-literal
https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/confluence/display/c/DCL21-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89990
Bug ID: 89990
Summary: request warning: Use of out of bound compound
initialised struct
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89989
Bug ID: 89989
Summary: missed devirtualization opportunity on final function
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89986
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Apr 5 16:56:27 2019
New Revision: 270174
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270174&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/89986 export directory_iterator::increment
PR libst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87431
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Apr 5 16:56:09 2019
New Revision: 270170
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270170&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/87431 re-adjust never-valueless optimizations
Avoid creati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89922
--- Comment #4 from Antony Polukhin ---
> Was the testcase just an artificial one or does it appear (in this
> isolated form!) in a real application/benchmark?
I was not investigating a particular benchmark or real world application at
first.
M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89980
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89980
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89988
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89988
Bug ID: 89988
Summary: [9 regression] bootstrap build fails with segfault
starting with r270155
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89980
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Schwab ---
It fails everywhere.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89980
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5)
> Thanks for the small test case.
>
> The affected x86 targets are presumably limited to i386. My x86_64
> bootstrap was successful.
It also failed on x86-64 with
--pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55591
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Testing the updated patch
The patch retested cleanly, but so far does not show a noticeable compilation
speed up (pr55585 being fixed since some time).
> Ugh, this looks like a very bad idea. -fs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89980
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Thanks for the small test case.
The affected x86 targets are presumably limited to i386. My x86_64 bootstrap
was successful.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89985
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89985
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Apr 5 15:15:37 2019
New Revision: 270169
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270169&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Guard notes for -Waddress-of-packed-member on warning emission (PR c/89
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71598
--- Comment #16 from Christophe Lyon ---
Author: clyon
Date: Fri Apr 5 15:10:12 2019
New Revision: 270168
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270168&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[testsuite] PR71598: Fix testcases again
2019-04-05 Christophe Lyon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89973
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89973
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Apr 5 14:56:53 2019
New Revision: 270166
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270166&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/89973 - -Waddress-of-packed-member ICE with invalid conv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89987
Bug ID: 89987
Summary: ICE on GCC trunk and GCC 8 on arm-none-linux-gnueabihf
target with “-O1” option
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89893
--- Comment #30 from 康 珊 ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #29)
> > Thanks for your reminder. Currently I found there were 3 ways to solve the
> > issue.
> > 1.Remove “enable-lto” in configure and open “fno-strict-aliasing”.
> > 2.Add “_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89961
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
I take it base. Makes sense to behave exactly as for non-intermediate format
mode.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89961
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Cristian Morales Vega from comment #5)
> OK, trying to catch you here, from my gcc-8.3.1.
> So with gcc 9 "--intermediate-format" is gone and we now have
> "--json-format" (keeping the "-i" versio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89893
--- Comment #29 from Martin Liška ---
> Thanks for your reminder. Currently I found there were 3 ways to solve the
> issue.
> 1.Remove “enable-lto” in configure and open “fno-strict-aliasing”.
> 2.Add “__attribute__((noipa))” to the uv_unref(uv_h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89961
--- Comment #5 from Cristian Morales Vega ---
OK, trying to catch you here, from my gcc-8.3.1.
So with gcc 9 "--intermediate-format" is gone and we now have "--json-format"
(keeping the "-i" version)?
The "--intermediate-format" documentation u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89986
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89986
Bug ID: 89986
Summary: [9 Regression] missing export for
directory_iterator::increment
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: link-failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89893
--- Comment #28 from 康 珊 ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #27)
> (In reply to 康 珊 from comment #26)
> > I found the previous build log is like "g++ -o
> > /builddir/build/BUILD/node-v10.15.3/out/Release/cctest -pthread -rdynamic
> > -m6
d_block": true
}
]
},
{
"file": "auto/foo.h",
"functions": [
{
"blocks": 2,
"blocks_executed": 0,
"demangled_name"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89985
Bug ID: 89985
Summary: [9 Regression] Stray notes from
OPT_Waddress_of_packed_member with -w
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89929
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #11)
> Agree with Nick, one should be able to have clones with specific AVX512
> flavors.
> I can prepare patch for it, only issues is the priority as I already
> mentioned.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89984
Bug ID: 89984
Summary: Extra register move
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89905
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Apr 5 11:55:45 2019
New Revision: 270165
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270165&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-04-05 Richard Biener
PR debug/89892
PR debug/8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89892
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Apr 5 11:55:45 2019
New Revision: 270165
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270165&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-04-05 Richard Biener
PR debug/89892
PR debug/8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89983
Bug ID: 89983
Summary: Missing debug info for final loop IV value
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89980
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89982
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89982
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89975
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Well, the parameter says that average function prologue+epilogue overhead is
20 instructions. Inliner thus thinks it is very cool to deeply recursively
inline.
The resulting inline decision is pretty wide
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89982
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89982
Bug ID: 89982
Summary: [9 regression] SEGV in stage2 gengtype
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55591
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871
--- Comment #9 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #8)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5)
> > The first one just needs an xfail. I don't know if it should be *-*-* there
> > or only arm*-*-* should be added.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89893
--- Comment #27 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to 康 珊 from comment #26)
> I found the previous build log is like "g++ -o
> /builddir/build/BUILD/node-v10.15.3/out/Release/cctest -pthread -rdynamic
> -m64
> -Wl,--whole-archive,/builddir/build/BUI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89981
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89944
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84382
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #3)
> How do you propose to enforce a certain standard and allow
> GNU extensions? For example, -std=gnu2003 would enforce
> Fortran 2003, but allow GNU extensions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89979
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89499
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Created attachment 46094
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46094&action=edit
[WIP] [PR89499] CIF_OPENACC_ROUTINE_MISMATCH
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #4)
> Unless there is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89893
--- Comment #26 from 康 珊 ---
I found the previous build log is like "g++ -o
/builddir/build/BUILD/node-v10.15.3/out/Release/cctest -pthread -rdynamic -m64
-Wl,--whole-archive,/builddir/build/BUILD/node-v10.15.3/out/Release/obj.target/deps/uv/libu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89964
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, it seems like overkill to split them. I just want submitting GCC bugs
(which is more common by two orders of magnitude) to require fewer clicks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89975
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89972
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89971
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89963
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Actually it does - just compile-time isn't linear in the max operations :/
--param max-isl-operations compile-time
10 0.36s
11 2.62s
12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89893
--- Comment #25 from 康 珊 ---
OK. Then I will remove "enable-lto" in configure and try "-O3" with
"-fno-strict-aliasing" to see whether it can solve the issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89945
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89981
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Without -pedantic I get the following warnings
sadmvnt.f:80:15:
80 | INFORM = MVNNIT( N, CORREL, LOWER, UPPER, INFIN, INFIS, D, E )
| 1
Warning: More actual than formal a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89968
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89965
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89893
--- Comment #24 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to 康 珊 from comment #23)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #22)
> > (In reply to 康 珊 from comment #21)
> > > All of the experiments were did in according to the build steps I just
> > > gave
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89963
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89981
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89936
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89980
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89936
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Apr 5 09:04:41 2019
New Revision: 270164
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270164&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix ChangeLog entries.
contrib/ChangeLog:
2019-04-03 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89935
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89962
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |diagnostic,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89950
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89946
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo