https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60913
--- Comment #6 from Damian Rouson ---
I don't have any specific knowledge of it being fixed, but there have been two
releases since 6.1.0: the latest is 6.3.0 and 7.1.0 is expected to be released
soon so the current trunk is a nearly releasable s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061
--- Comment #19 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Wed Jan 25 07:45:40 2017
New Revision: 244890
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244890&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/79061
gcc/
* asan.c (get_translation_unit_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78559
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I am leaning toward accepting Bin's patch, but testing whether that hurts
generated code too much still hasn't finished.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79223
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79223
Bug ID: 79223
Summary: missing -Wstringop-overflow on a memmove overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79222
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79222
Bug ID: 79222
Summary: missing -Wstringop-overflow= on a stpcpy overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79221
Bug ID: 79221
Summary: missing -Wstringop-overflow= on a strcat overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79216
--- Comment #4 from H. Peter Anvin ---
As in, I would expect that:
struct foo __attribute__((scalar_storage_order("big-endian")))
{
uint32_t bar;
} foo;
uint32_t *baz = &foo.bar;
... would give an error on a littleendian architecture and a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79216
--- Comment #3 from H. Peter Anvin ---
It does indeed, I don't know why I missed it. The only thing that I really see
as a problem with it is that it doesn't allow the assignment of endianness to
scalar pointers, e.g.:
uint32_t __attribute__((s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79220
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Host|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70717
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79220
Bug ID: 79220
Summary: missing -Wstringop-overflow= on a memcpy overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78559
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49025
--- Comment #2 from David Sagan ---
Bug present in 5.3.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79217
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78559
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78559
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at redhat dot com
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=448
--- Comment #33 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I think it's appropriate for this bug to track the missing pieces, whether
directly or through dependencies on a series of bugs for each target OS.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79205
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=448
--- Comment #32 from Martin Sebor ---
Thanks. I wonder if the incomplete support on those targets should be handled
as separate bug reports raised by users if/when they run into problems. That
way this large bug could be closed as resolved. Woul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69602
--- Comment #16 from Martin Sebor ---
There are straightforward ways to avoid interspersing code with preprocessor
conditionals:
#if EAGAIN == EWOULDBLOCK
# #define EAGAIN_OR_WOULDBLOCK(e) (e == EAGAIN)
#else
# #define EAGAIN_OR_WOULD
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79205
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 24 22:33:41 2017
New Revision: 244885
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244885&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79205
* cp-gimplify.c (cp_genericize_r): Add result
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79216
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Does the scalar_storage_order attribute added in GCC 6 help for at least
some of this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=448
--- Comment #31 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The following targets still appear to be missing this type information in
GCC: some NetBSD targets (netbsd-stdint.h only used for x86 / x86_64),
VxWorks, SymbianOS, LynxOS, QNX, TPF. Others
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69188
anthonyfk at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40528
Yuri Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69602
--- Comment #15 from Eric Blake ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #14)
> I would suggest to keep the warning simple and avoid overdesigning it with
> workarounds for this case. The solution in comment #12 (copied below) seems
> like a g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69602
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79202
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #2)
> Can we instead do:
>
> xscvdpsxws 32,1
> vupkhsw 1,0
> xvcvsxwdp 3,33
Replying to myself, the answer is no, the vupkhsw doesn't write it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79218
--- Comment #1 from Peter Bergner ---
Actually, gcc6 produces the same result (unnecessary swaps) if we use the
-mvsx-timode option, which is not on by default in gcc6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79219
Bug ID: 79219
Summary: Feature request: double width/single width division
and remainder
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79218
Bug ID: 79218
Summary: Missed swap optimization on powerpc64le simple test
case
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79217
Bug ID: 79217
Summary: Feature request: high half of a multiplication
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79216
--- Comment #1 from H. Peter Anvin ---
The idea being that assignments to/from such a data item would make the
compiler generate the appropriate byte-swapping instructions appropriate for
the architecture. If part of a packed structure, this wou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57612
H. Peter Anvin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hpa at zytor dot com
--- Comment #2 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79216
Bug ID: 79216
Summary: Feature request: byte order attributes
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79215
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71613
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wellnhofer at aevum dot de
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79214
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=448
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43167
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79215
Bug ID: 79215
Summary: -Wpedantic doesn't warn if UINT64_MAX is used as enum
constant
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79170
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79205
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Created attachment 40570 [details]
> gcc7-pr79205.patch
>
> Untested fix.
Looks good.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79185
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78469
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79118
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78469
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Tue Jan 24 19:29:44 2017
New Revision: 244882
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244882&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/78469 - defaulted ctor and inaccessible dtor
* cp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79118
--- Comment #10 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Tue Jan 24 19:25:32 2017
New Revision: 244881
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244881&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79118 - anon-members and constexpr
* constexpr.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79190
--- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2017-01-24 1:34 PM, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79190
>
> --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> Would you be able to test the patch at
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79214
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79214
Bug ID: 79214
Summary: -Wno-system-header defeats strncat buffer overflow
warnings
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68664
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tulipawn at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #19 from James Greenhalgh ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #18)
> (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #17)
> > Created attachment 40573 [details]
> > preprocessed testcase
>
> Here's the preprocessed testcase generat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79190
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Would you be able to test the patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-01/msg01910.html on HPUX 11?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79202
--- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Michael Meissner from comment #0)
> It may be more optimal to generate something like:
>
> xscvdpsxws 32,1
> vupkhsw 1,0
> xxpermdi 2,33,33,3
> fcfid 3,2
Can we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69388
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Dimitry Andric from comment #4)
> As I discussed with libc++ maintainer Eric Fiselier, it would be nice if
> those functions called terminate() in the 'fatal' case instead. Then you at
> least
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60913
--- Comment #5 from Chris ---
Has there been any progress on this bug? It is making a large piece of
scientific software I have written unusable for decent resolution simulations.
I'm running gfortran 6.1.0, compiled with OpenCoarrays support.
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77333
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
Interesting to see stack issues after IPA-CP changes.
Please try compiling with -fno-devirtualize
If it does not help, try -fno-ipa-cp (or both).
If any of the above does help, adding it to just the file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69388
Dimitry Andric changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dimitry at andric dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60913
Chris changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cmacmackin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77439
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77439
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Jan 24 17:18:02 2017
New Revision: 244880
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244880&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/77439
* config/arm/arm.c (arm_function_ok_fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64697
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46676
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Full sentences appear now to be used - but all the diagnostic function
calls now use main_args_p ? "diag 1" : "diag 2" as the msgid argument,
which results in only diag 1 and not diag 2 bei
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
--- Comment #12 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to amker from comment #10)
> (In reply to amker from comment #9)
> > Root cause should be in VRP, looks like the iterative algorithm depends on
> > order of ssa operands and computes diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77439
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Jan 24 17:15:02 2017
New Revision: 244879
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244879&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/77439
* config/arm/arm.c (arm_function_ok_fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79207
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
It's hardly specific to those arguments. Any case of two or more calls of
(sin or cos) (+/- x + constant) for same x, possibly different constant,
could be converted (given -funsafe-math-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #18 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #17)
> Created attachment 40573 [details]
> preprocessed testcase
Here's the preprocessed testcase generated on:
openSUSE Leap 42.1 (aarch64)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #17 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 40573
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40573&action=edit
preprocessed testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79213
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79213
Bug ID: 79213
Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/ldp_vec_64_1.c scan-assembler
ldp\td[0-9]+, d[0-9]
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79168
--- Comment #5 from Brian Rzycki ---
Hi Jakub, I just manually ran our nightly snapshot script and successfully
built a GCC AArch64 compiler. The SHA used was d889d15 which contains your fix
in its history.
I have verified this as fixed. Thank
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69388
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69388
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Following discussion with one of the libc++ developers, we're considering some
common API that would allow an aplication to globally turn those throws into
aborts, so that redefining them would be unnecessa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69388
Nathan Froyd changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62187
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse ---
Ignoring strange specializations of char_traits, we could also consider a
specialized version of memcmp/strncmp that checks for a terminating 0 in only
one of the 2 strings. This would avoid the call to strlen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79212
Bug ID: 79212
Summary: internal compiler error: in
maybe_lookup_decl_in_outer_ctx, at omp-low.c:4134
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79202
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79159
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71767
--- Comment #58 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #57)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #55)
> > nope, it needs back-porting to 6.x and 5.x - will do that after it's been on
> > trunk a while.
>
> Is b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62187
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I've also created an LWG issue about this, so I hope before Stage 1 starts
we'll have LWG guidance saying it's OK to do this for all basic_string, not
only std::string and std::wstring.
We should also make
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62187
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oops, no, not that overload. The other one ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62187
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ah yes, of course. So we can move that traits::length into the operator== and
then call the compare(size_type, size_type, const CharT*) overload instead.
I'll take care of this in Stage 1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56069
--- Comment #17 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
OK. Changing milestone to gcc-8. I think we can reasonably allow guality to
regress here. Waiting until gcc-8 also gives the updated gdb more time to get
deployed in the wild.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62187
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62187
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
I was also confused when re-reading this PR, but if you check the current code,
we already start by computing the length of the char*... (I think the main
issue is when the string starts the same as the char*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69264
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #16 from Aldy Hernandez ---
>
> Could you dump me the assembly of the hot loop before and after that change
> - I'll see if we're doing anything particularly offensive with the
> scheduling, though I still don't have access to the so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62187
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If I understand correctly, that would require doing two passes over the const
char* argument, one to find its length and another (when the lengths are equal)
to compare each character. That would be benefic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56049
--- Comment #21 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
c#19 (WRT guality regressing) was for a different BZ. Sorry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71767
--- Comment #57 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #55)
> nope, it needs back-porting to 6.x and 5.x - will do that after it's been on
> trunk a while.
Is backport to 5.x still planned?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #15 from James Greenhalgh ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #13)
> The aarch64-linux-gnu regression originally reported for -mcpu=cortex-a53
> was caused by:
>
> commit 08993ad1c669cab64baf352f79cd7f8584dd8e0c
> Author: jg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #14 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Since the culprit for the reported regression is aarch64 specific, I think we
should open an independent x86-64 PR (or an architecture independent PR if the
other reported problem by Richi is reproducible o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #13 from Aldy Hernandez ---
The aarch64-linux-gnu regression originally reported for -mcpu=cortex-a53 was
caused by:
commit 08993ad1c669cab64baf352f79cd7f8584dd8e0c
Author: jgreenhalgh
Date: Thu Oct 1 09:33:40 2015 +
[Pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64697
--- Comment #17 from Václav Haisman ---
This is still an issue in 2017 with GCC 5.4.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78363
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78041
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.5
1 - 100 of 192 matches
Mail list logo
