https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71045
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64919
--- Comment #35 from The Written Word
---
I am trying to build 4.9.4 with a patched 4.7.4 and am running into the
following failure:
/opt/build/china/gcc-4.9.4/.obj/./gcc/xgcc
-B/opt/build/china/gcc-4.9.4/.obj/./gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86617
Bug ID: 86617
Summary: Volatile qualifier is ignored sometimes for unsigned
char
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86519
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86616
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82063
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82063
--- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Jul 20 21:19:49 2018
New Revision: 262912
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262912=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/82063 - issues with arguments enabled by -Wall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82063
--- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Jul 20 21:18:31 2018
New Revision: 262911
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262911=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/82063
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82063
--- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Jul 20 20:51:20 2018
New Revision: 262910
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262910=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/82063 - issues with arguments enabled by -Wall
gcc/ada/ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86519
--- Comment #7 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
the root cause for this bug is:
for the following call to memcmp: __builtin_memcmp (s->s, "a", 3);
the specified length 3 is larger than the length of "a", it's clearly a
out-of-bound access.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86616
Bug ID: 86616
Summary: [9 regression] c-c++-common/Warray-bounds-2.c fails
starting with r262893
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86615
--- Comment #1 from Michele Denber ---
Forgot to add I'm already using:
# echo $CFLAGS
-fpermissive
# echo $CXXFLAGS
-fpermissive
#
Then just "gmake".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86615
Bug ID: 86615
Summary: gcc build failure: auto-host.h error: declaration
does not declare anything [-fpermissive]
Product: gcc
Version: 6.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78809
--- Comment #42 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
just checked in the patch for fixing the unsigned char issue as:
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision=262907
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
--- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 44415
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44415=edit
gcc9-p0595r1.patch
Untested patch that passes the testcase in P0595R1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86592
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86610
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86614
Bug ID: 86614
Summary: duplicate -Warray-bounds for a strncpy call with
out-of-bounds offset
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86611
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Jul 20 16:38:43 2018
New Revision: 262906
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262906=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/86613 - missing -Warray-bounds on a wide string access due
to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86613
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Jul 20 16:38:43 2018
New Revision: 262906
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262906=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/86613 - missing -Warray-bounds on a wide string access due
to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86611
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86613
Bug ID: 86613
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds on a wide string access due to
ccp folding
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86611
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Another test case, except this one triggers a warning in lp64 but not in ilp32,
because of the same folding in fre1:
void f (int);
void g (void)
{
f (L"123456789"[-__PTRDIFF_MAX__ - 1]);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86611
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Ditto for the following (distilled from gcc.dg/Warray-bounds-31.c:
void f (int);
void g (void)
{
const char *q = "12345678" + 4;
__PTRDIFF_TYPE__ i = __PTRDIFF_MAX__ - 3;
f (q[i]);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86612
Bug ID: 86612
Summary: __strdup problem on power 9
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86611
Bug ID: 86611
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds on a large negative index into
a string in lp64
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86610
Bug ID: 86610
Summary: non-const operator erroneously called in lambda in
templated function
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 83776, which changed state.
Bug 83776 Summary: [6/7/8 Regression] missing -Warray-bounds indexing past the
end of a string literal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83776
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83776
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 84047, which changed state.
Bug 84047 Summary: [6/7/8 Regression] missing -Warray-bounds on an
out-of-bounds index into an array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84047
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84047
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'm also wondering about cxx_constant_init using !ctx->strict, shouldn't we in
those cases really require strict constant expressions, i.e.
let maybe_constant_init_1 call cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86589
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I just checked and 8.1.0 was OK
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86609
Bug ID: 86609
Summary: Reassociate (int) round sequences
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, apparently the first bullet is wherever the constant-expression
non-terminal appears in the grammar rather than that e is a constant
expression.
So the above patch really needs to be:
+ if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86547
--- Comment #1 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
I did a bisect and found two relevant commits:
1) c312b100: PR target/83712
Before: error: ‘asm’ operand has impossible constraints
After: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
2) eaefe34f: PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85656
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
Just for the record: according to gcc-testresults, the test also FAILs
on hppa64-hp-hpux11.11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85656
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
I haven't yet gotten around to looking closer, sorry.
I'll report once I've found something.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85656
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Rainer?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85759
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86022
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carlos at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86535
--- Comment #12 from Curtis Hamilton ---
I wanted to see if the errors were version specific, so I attempted a build on
FreeBSD 10.2 and the results were the same. So I manually edited the
"runtime_sysinfo.go", as best as I could to get past
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I wonder if instead of the list they provide they really didn't mean all the
spots in the standard that actually require constant-expression (I guess too
hard to list them all again in one place;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86596
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57891
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
*** Bug 86596 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86602
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86598
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86598
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84589
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84589
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhonghao at pku dot org.cn
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86600
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59480
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #44413|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86601
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59480
--- Comment #17 from Paolo Carlini ---
If we can exploit DECL_HIDDEN_FRIEND_P of the olddecl everything is much
easier: see attached draft which I'm probably going to resubmit as-is of with
only minor modifications.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86595
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86595
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Jul 20 11:52:54 2018
New Revision: 262904
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262904=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/86595 add missing noexcept
PR libstdc++/86595
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86608
Bug ID: 86608
Summary: volatile variable is taken as a constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86606
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
--save-temps=obj might work instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86603
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86603
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Jul 20 11:24:38 2018
New Revision: 262902
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262902=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/86603 Move __cpp_lib_list_remove_return_type macro
This should only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86607
Bug ID: 86607
Summary: constexpr function does not treat function pointers
with external linkage as constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86585
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86585
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jul 20 11:13:47 2018
New Revision: 262901
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262901=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-07-20 Richard Biener
PR debug/86585
* dwarf2out.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86606
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
IIRC -save-temps saves preprocesse source into $CWD.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86605
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
--- Comment #22 from Pedro Alves ---
clueless suggestion triggered by you saying "throwing": does marking
__constant_string_p noexcept, like:
...
__constant_string_p(const _CharT* __s) noexcept
...
make any difference?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84464
Tadeus Prastowo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|7.3.0 |8.1.0
--- Comment #1 from Tadeus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #20)
> (In reply to Pedro Alves from comment #19)
> > > confuses us because of the stupid structure of __constant_string_p.
> >
> > Yes, a stupid workaround for a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86606
Bug ID: 86606
Summary: Concurrent source files do not work with --save-temps
option
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86605
Bug ID: 86605
Summary: Suboptimal code for pointer arithmetic with 'this'
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Pedro Alves from comment #19)
> > confuses us because of the stupid structure of __constant_string_p.
>
> Yes, a stupid workaround for a stupid __builtin_strlen, which is being
> punished by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
Pedro Alves changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palves at redhat dot com
--- Comment #19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86336
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-linux, aarch64 |x86_64, aarch64, i?86,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86604
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Correction: it was approved by EWG to be forwarded to the Library Evolution WG,
for (at least) naming discussion, and then to CWG and LWG.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The P0595R1 design was approved (very favourably) by the Evolution WG at the
last meeting, so will be forwarded to the Core and Library groups for wording
review. So it's almost certain to be in C++2a in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #15)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #14)
> > That's been asked for repeatedly but will never happen, instead this is
> > being added to C++2a:
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #14)
> That's been asked for repeatedly but will never happen, instead this is
> being added to C++2a:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> Caused by r249137 which claims __builtin_strlen isn't usable in constexpr
> functions (well, why not? why not make it so?).
Yes please. That's what PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> So I've analyzed it more and it is because
>
> static _GLIBCXX17_CONSTEXPR size_t
> length(const char_type* __s)
> {
> #if __cplusplus >=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> > So I've analyzed it more and it is because
> >
> > static _GLIBCXX17_CONSTEXPR size_t
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> So I've analyzed it more and it is because
>
> static _GLIBCXX17_CONSTEXPR size_t
> length(const char_type* __s)
> {
> #if __cplusplus >=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86603
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palves at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86471
--- Comment #25 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Matt Bentley from comment #23)
> > Actually, don't quote me on that - I may be thinking of the
> > 'reinterpret_cast<_Tp>(0)' - one of the two.
>
> Just to confirm,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
I see differences in EH as well (comparing .original dumps of gnu++14 vs.
gnu++17):
@@ -126,7 +126,7 @@
;; enabled by -tree-original
-<<< Unknown tree: eh_spec_block
+<<< Unknown tree:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
I see differences in EH as well (comparing .original dumps of gnu++14 vs.
gnu++17):
@@ -126,7 +126,7 @@
;; enabled by -tree-original
-<<< Unknown tree: eh_spec_block
+<<< Unknown tree:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
-finline-limit=80 or higher (or more precisely --param
max-inline-insns-auto=40) lets it optimize.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86593
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-w64-mingw32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86591
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86592
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86504
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
Niall Douglas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Codegen regression when |Codegen is poor when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86604
Bug ID: 86604
Summary: Compiler can't think of smaller variable ranges
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86603
Bug ID: 86603
Summary: `__cpp_lib_list_remove_return_type` misplaced in the
header
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86589
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84047
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 19 Jul 2018, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84047
>
> Martin Sebor changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
