https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653
--- Comment #6 from Murat ---
Hello Dominique!
I took the test file from here:
http://www.fortran-2000.com/ArnaudRecipes/fcvs21_f95.html (file
fcvs21_f95.tar.bz2, modified version that conforms to Fortran 95).
I tried to compile with the option
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653
--- Comment #5 from Murat ---
Created attachment 45337
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45337&action=edit
files of tests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653
--- Comment #3 from Murat ---
Created attachment 45335
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45335&action=edit
gfortran verson
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653
--- Comment #4 from Murat ---
Created attachment 45336
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45336&action=edit
error message
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88668
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
So the correct fix is to add --enable-targets=$enable_targets to
${realsrcdir}/configure command instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88668
--- Comment #5 from Umesh Kalappa ---
Andrew unfortunately your suggestion didn't worked for us and there was
mis-lead in our fix and the actual change was like
--- a/gcc/configure
+++ b/gcc/configure
@@ -11795,15 +11795,16 @@ else
CXX=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51712
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Nieder ---
That said, as mentioned in comment#15, the use of -fno-short-enums in the test
is not right. I'll try removing that and see if the test still passes tomorrow
(it should).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88689
Bug ID: 88689
Summary: Resource leak.. Leaked storage
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88688
Bug ID: 88688
Summary: Incorrect association in SELECT TYPE
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88687
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88687
Bug ID: 88687
Summary: redundant -Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch after
-Wimplicit-function-declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88659
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88659
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Jan 4 03:13:33 2019
New Revision: 267569
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267569&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/88659 - ICE in maybe_warn_nonstring_arg
gcc/ChangeLo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67276
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64679
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87836
--- Comment #23 from Gary Mills ---
It's not Solaris, first of all. Solaris is a closed system once again. It's
illumos, which is derived from Opensolaris. These are the two assemblers:
This is on SPARC hardware:
$ as -V
as: Sun Compiler Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70968
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69215
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38629
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85716
--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to sandra from comment #9)
> Just to clarify, I didn't have anything to do with proposing a "progress
> bar"; I just needed to know whether the split1 pass had run yet. And I
> ended up solving th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15896
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64525
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|kugan at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88683
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jansche ---
Yeah, looks definitely related. Details may depend on the ultimate diagnosis.
Similar observation here that it matters whether NaN appears on the left-hand
side vs. right-hand side of a comparison (cf.
htt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51712
Jonathan Nieder changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88686
--- Comment #1 from Qirun Zhang ---
The output should be "j=0". However, it incorrectly prints "j=1" at -O1.
t;gcc version 9.0.0
20190103 (experimental) [trunk revision 267553] (GCC)". The gdb version does
not matter. I can reproduce it with gdb 7.7.
Below is my original report:
=8<=
$ gdb-trunk --version
GNU gdb (GDB) 8.2.50.20181223-git
*It correctly prints the value without optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88685
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51712
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82924
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82521
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jure.slak at ijs dot si
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82521
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88685
Bug ID: 88685
Summary: 8/9 regression] pointer class array argument indexing
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87364
--- Comment #12 from Will Wray ---
I can take a look at the weekend or early next week -
reproduce the test fails and diagnose some more.
I'll try to find answers to the questions I raised in comment #4
(about name mangling of enum types) and se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87364
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Will Wray from comment #4)
> Thanks Martin,
>
> I investigated enum template args with GCC bug 81932 test code,
> repeating its GDB Python-debug-print test case for enum args.
>
> Conclusion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88170
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Looks like these warnings were mentioned in PR 87634 comment 4, but nobody
noticed the resulting test failures.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87364
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This caused PR 88170
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88683
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
DUP of PR 88173?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88170
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wjwray at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88684
Bug ID: 88684
Summary: Please make SANITIZER_NON_UNIQUE_TYPEINFO a runtime
flag (or always true)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88683
Bug ID: 88683
Summary: nan <= inf not accepted as constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88607
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Jan 3 22:07:52 2019
New Revision: 267565
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267565&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/88607 replace some more UTF-8 characters
2019-01-03 Jonath
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88681
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88672
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45424
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45322|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88682
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64*-unknown-linux-gn |powerpc64*-unknown-linux-gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88607
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88680
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82613
Damian Jarek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||damian.jarek93 at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88672
Damian Jarek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88607
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Jan 3 20:38:11 2019
New Revision: 267564
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267564&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/88607 replace or remove unnecessary UTF-8 characters
There
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88681
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Jan 3 20:38:04 2019
New Revision: 267563
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267563&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/88681 export missing symbols
These new facet functions were
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88674
Anders Granlund changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88682
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88682
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88682
Bug ID: 88682
Summary: new test case c-c++-common/pr51628-10.c fails starting
with its introduction in r267313
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 06:39:05PM +, seurer at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
>
> --- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Program received signal S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86891
--- Comment #5 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #4)
> Yes, the extension should be zero-extend, not sign extend. The plus
> operation is correct, however, since decrementing the first operand could
> lead to underflow if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88594
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88343
--- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #19)
> Created attachment 45330 [details]
> Bad assembly (from trunk r267560 with the patch still present)
Thanks, Joseph, that's very helpful.
.. so the code plainl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88616
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Program received signal SIGFPE: Floating-point exception - erroneous arithmetic
operation.
Backtrace for this error:
#0 0x3fffb17f0477 in ???
#1 0x3fffb14f1694 in feenableexcept
at ../sy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88681
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. When optimization is enabled the functions are inlined, so the exports
aren't needed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88681
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88681
Bug ID: 88681
Summary: Missing symbol exports in libstdc++.so
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88620
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88679
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88343
--- Comment #19 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Created attachment 45330
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45330&action=edit
Bad assembly (from trunk r267560 with the patch still present)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88343
--- Comment #18 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Created attachment 45329
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45329&action=edit
Good assembly (with the GCC patch reverted)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88343
--- Comment #17 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Created attachment 45328
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45328&action=edit
Preprocessed source
Replacing s_nextafterf.os built with trunk with that patch reverted, by the
same file as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88679
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Your GCC is configured -m32 ISA to x86-64 ISA by default. To default -m32 ISA
to i686 ISA, please configure your GCC with --with-arch_32=i686. Or you can
use
"-march=i686 -m32".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88680
Bug ID: 88680
Summary: [9 Regression] bogus -Wtype-limits for constant
expressions after r267272
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
with: ../gcc-trunk-20190103/configure
--prefix=/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-build/staging --build=x86_64-linux-gnu
--host=x86_64-linux-gnu --target=x86_64-linux-gnu --disable-bootstrap
--enable-multiarch --with-abi=m64 --with-multilib-list=m32,m64,mx32
--enable-multilib --enable-clocale=gnu --enable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88674
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
"qualified" is used in the informal sense of "any additional specifiers
along with void", not in the sense of "type qualifiers present". The
program is not valid. J.2 explicitly lists "A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88672
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Also, https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs very clearly says we need the testcase in
bugzilla, and not just a URL to some other site.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88672
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Please check if this is a duplicate of one of the bugs that PR 59002 depends
on.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88510
--- Comment #2 from Devin Hussey ---
Update: I did the calculations, and twomul has the same cycle count as
goodmul_sse. vmul.i32 with 128-bit operands takes 4 cycles (I assumed it was
two), so just like goodmul_sse, it takes 11 cycles.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88673
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88679
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88343
--- Comment #16 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Thu, 3 Jan 2019, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be anything in the GCC test suite that
> catches this (all languages reg-strap was clean, on gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88679
Bug ID: 88679
Summary: SSE2 intrinsics are available by default on x86
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88675
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88027
acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88677
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-reduction
--- Comment #5 from Marti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88677
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
This drops TYPE_NEEDS_CONSTRUCTING. I checked the uses
jan@skylake:~/trunk/gcc> grep TYPE_NEEDS_CONSTRU *.c
gimplify.c: || TYPE_NEEDS_CONSTRUCTING (TREE_TYPE (decl
print-tree.c: if (TYPE_NEEDS_C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to seurer from comment #0)
> Program received signal SIGFPE: Floating-point exception - erroneous
> arithmetic operation.
>
> Backtrace for this error:
> #0 0x3fffb00304d7 in ???
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88677
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
Bug ID: 88678
Summary: [9 regression] Many gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_X.f90 test
cases fail starting with r267465
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86891
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Yes, the extension should be zero-extend, not sign extend. The plus operation
is correct, however, since decrementing the first operand could lead to
underflow if it was zero. So the correct rtl would be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88677
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 45327
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45327&action=edit
dump with lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88677
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 45326
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45326&action=edit
dump with no lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88677
Bug ID: 88677
Summary: Divergence in -O2 and -O2 -flto early opts
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88598
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 3 Jan 2019, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88598
>
> --- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
> ---
> I think a general fix for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88669
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Works when class(t) is replaced by type(t), so the attributes
were not correctly set somewhere.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88598
--- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
I think a general fix for this would involve tracking the set of
nonzero vector elements and adding a match.pd rule that uses that
to replace REDUC functions in which only one element of the
ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84478
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #5)
> The new testcase FAILs e.g. on i386-pc-solaris2.11 and sparc-sun-solaris2.11
> (32-bit only) at -O1 and above:
>
> +FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr84478.c -O1 executi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88654
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #0)
> > The reason I'm filing this is that there are multiple issues:
> >
> > 1) what I'm worried about most is that the ti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88676
Bug ID: 88676
Summary: missed opportunity is integer conditional
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88671
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88598
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88654
--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #0)
> The reason I'm filing this is that there are multiple issues:
>
> 1) what I'm worried about most is that the timeouts for tests don't work, it
> happens that some
1 - 100 of 159 matches
Mail list logo