https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98531
--- Comment #13 from Iain Sandoe ---
fixed for Darwin.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96251
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
So, as noted, the problem is being caused because the coroutine is being
regarded as potentially constexpr while still type-dependent, and then failing
during template expansion.
All the coroutine expressions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95615
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 50195
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50195=edit
Patch for testing
This implements the change including cleanup of parm copies with non-trivial
DTORs as mentioned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98996
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose ---
patches posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-February/565312.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-February/565313.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98976
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-2-16
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99115
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.0
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97587
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-16
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99100
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1531f39268c8973cf9478585fba5c5bbdb6e9c4c
commit r11-7253-g1531f39268c8973cf9478585fba5c5bbdb6e9c4c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99100
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk, not sure about backporting yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99119
Bug ID: 99119
Summary: Class Types in Non-Type Template Parameters - ICE with
templates nested
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99072
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99118
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99068
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99105
--- Comment #17 from Martin Liška ---
I've got a patch candidate.
Using the patch, make -j128 check-clang takes 6 minutes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98722
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98720
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98777
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96960
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=99116
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99117
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Something like this prevents the miscompilation, at the cost of an extra copy:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/valarray
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/valarray
@@ -838,7 +838,13 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98777
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #4)
> Vlad, is this fixed now and we can close it? It's marked as a P1, so would
> be nice to close if fixed.
I believe it is fixed and we could close the PR but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93383
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vopl at bk dot ru
--- Comment #8 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99119
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98998
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98719
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99067
bin cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99118
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-16
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99118
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99118
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99111
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ebf9b6c13f0847ddcc22e540a5fcdbf644e85a9c
commit r11-7255-gebf9b6c13f0847ddcc22e540a5fcdbf644e85a9c
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98860
--- Comment #34 from H.J. Lu ---
This may be related to
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2021-February/115395.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98722
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #5)
> Another P1 that looks like it might be fixed. Vlad, can we marked this as
> fixed?
I believe it is fixed and we could close the PR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98096
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:72d78655a91bb2f89ac4432cfd6374380d6f9987
commit r11-7256-g72d78655a91bb2f89ac4432cfd6374380d6f9987
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99106
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99068
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Brian Grayson from comment #4)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #3)
> > Then you get
> >
> > addi 9,9,-2
> > lhau 10,2(9)
> > addi 9,9,2
> >
> > which is worse than just
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99110
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-16
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99112
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99117
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Regression started with r260318
tree-ssa-sccvn.c (vn_reference_lookup_3): Improve memset handling.
2018-05-17 Richard Biener
* tree-ssa-sccvn.c (vn_reference_lookup_3): Improve memset
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99117
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99117
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99117
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> int* p = sum._M_data;
> int* e1 = sum._M_data;
>
> If p and e1 aren't __restrict__ too, shouldn't that be fine?
p (called __p below) doesn't use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95822
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 50196
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50196=edit
Patch for testing
this needs some wider testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99108
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99117
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The problem is that sum + e returns an expression template that holds
references to its operands, so that the sum is done lazily.
When that expression template result is assigned back to sum it evaluates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
--- Comment #100 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3f16a1678156035bbe73b217fbce4d9c27d1d559
commit r11-7254-g3f16a1678156035bbe73b217fbce4d9c27d1d559
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95616
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 50197
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50197=edit
Patch being tested
this fixes the top-level check, but doesn't yet look at (a) operator co_await
(b) the await_*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99105
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
I've got it:
(gdb) bt
#0 __gcov_merge_topn (counters=, n_counters=)
at ../../../libgcc/libgcov-merge.c:119
#1 0x07d57150 in merge_one_data (summary=,
gi_ptr=0xbb74ae0,
filename=0xd78d360
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99117
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99117
>
> --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99111
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99118
Bug ID: 99118
Summary: ICE in alias_ctad_tweaks, at cp/pt.c:28569
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99110
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99117
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|7.5.0, 8.4.0|
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96997
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96997
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The -fdump-tree-gimple-lineno changes between the previous revision and the
above one are:
--- pr96997.ii.005t.gimple_ 2021-02-16 12:04:49.0 -0500
+++ pr96997.ii.005t.gimple 2021-02-16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18420
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|VERIFIED|CLOSED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99123
Bug ID: 99123
Summary: ICE in decompose_normal_address, at rtlanal.c:6710
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99124
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
--- Comment #22 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #21)
> Also, how many warnings for this type of code (or other) do you see? If
> there are too many it might be worth revisiting the decision.
I see it only in 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99109
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=86096
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96997
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
No differences in -fdump-tree-original-lineno dump, but it seems the original
dump doesn't really dump any locations for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99121
Bug ID: 99121
Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] ICE tree check: expected
integer_cst, have var_decl in get_len, at tree.h:6037
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86096
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov ---
It was fixed on the trunk only, so as the title says it remains an issue on the
gcc-8 branch (which is still open). Bugzilla doesn't have separate resolutions
for different branches, we cannot have this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99114
--- Comment #6 from pipcet at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 50204
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50204=edit
RTL dump of combine pass
(Gzipped because of the file size limit).
The relevant section is around this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99068
--- Comment #7 from Brian Grayson ---
A single lhau instruction is better than two instructions (lha + addi) for many
reasons. Are there reasons that you feel a two-instruction sequence of lha+addi
is *superior* to just an lhau?
On all PowerPC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98519
--- Comment #23 from Michael Meissner ---
Obviously one approach is to use the recog_data.is_asm field to determine if
the %m constraint is in an asm and restrict it to non-prefixed memory
addresses.
However, this doesn't work, because is_asm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98519
--- Comment #24 from Michael Meissner ---
Obviously I had a small typo in the previous example (using %U0%X0 instead of
%U1%X1) which did not matter, but here is the corrected example:
static int x;
int *p_x =
int get (void)
{
int a;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99120
Bug ID: 99120
Summary: ICE in -Wshadow in templated member function
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99120
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
--- Comment #20 from Martin Sebor ---
Martin, does the code in the packages follow the pattern below?
$ cat t.C && gcc -O2 -S -Wall t.C
struct A { virtual ~A (); };
struct B { virtual ~B (); void f (); };
void f (A *p)
{
if (dynamic_cast(p))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99124
Bug ID: 99124
Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_get_class_from_expr,
at fortran/trans-expr.c:541
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
--- Comment #21 from Martin Sebor ---
Also, how many warnings for this type of code (or other) do you see? If there
are too many it might be worth revisiting the decision.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99121
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-16
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96997
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=99122
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-16
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99125
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99114
--- Comment #7 from pipcet at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #4)
> > I'll try, but please consider investigating this without one. It happens
> > after a very lengthy compilation process (compiling a buggy gcc with a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98519
--- Comment #25 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 50201
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50201=edit
Example code for both input and output %m usage
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21460
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||
Status|VERIFIED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42431
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|VERIFIED|CLOSED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15720
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99062
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:30a4d95bf76b0a0fdb66ac0211589a4434c83af3
commit r11-7259-g30a4d95bf76b0a0fdb66ac0211589a4434c83af3
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99062
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] ICE in |[10 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20780
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12738
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|VERIFIED|CLOSED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21761
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|VERIFIED|CLOSED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99120
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99120
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99122
Bug ID: 99122
Summary: [10/11 Regression] ICE in force_constant_size, at
gimplify.c:733
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99125
Bug ID: 99125
Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] ICE: gimplification failed
(gimplify.c:15068)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99125
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
Works with valid code :
$ cat z0.f90
program p
type t
character(:), allocatable :: c(:)
end type
character(8) :: a(2) = '12 45 78'
type(t) :: x
x%c = a
print *, x%c
print *,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96997
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Palka ---
It looks like the problematic hunk from r10-7718 is
* tree.c (build_aggr_init_expr): Set the location of the AGGR_INIT_EXPR to that
of its initializer.
diff --git a/gcc/cp/tree.c b/gcc/cp/tree.c
index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96997
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'd say so, yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99123
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99114
pipcet at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pipcet at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
--- Comment #23 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #20)
> Martin, does the code in the packages follow the pattern below?
>
> $ cat t.C && gcc -O2 -S -Wall t.C
> struct A { virtual ~A (); };
> struct B { virtual ~B ();
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99126
Bug ID: 99126
Summary: Compilation ICE trying insert trap
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: jit
This is the bt of how the C front-end is initializing these
declarations:
#0 set_builtin_decl (implicit_p=,
decl=,
fncode=) at ../../gcc/tree.h:5662
#1 def_builtin_1 (fncode=, name=,
fntype=, libtype=, both_p=,
fallback_p=, nonansi_p=false,
fnattrs=, implicit_p=true,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99126
--- Comment #1 from Andrea Corallo ---
This is the bt of how the C front-end is initializing these
declarations:
#0 set_builtin_decl (implicit_p=,
decl=,
fncode=) at ../../gcc/tree.h:5662
#1 def_builtin_1 (fncode=, name=,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99050
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96251
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
---
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
