https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105940
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f907cf4c07cf51863dadbe90894e2ae3382bada5
commit r13-1083-gf907cf4c07cf51863dadbe90894e2ae3382bada5
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Tue Jun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
--- Comment #23 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
(In reply to Siddhesh Poyarekar from comment #22)
> An arbitrary N will only make it abuse-friendly and potentially mask bugs.
> IMO if we choose to make multiple levels here it should only be
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
--- Comment #22 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
(In reply to Kees Cook from comment #21)
> How about "-fnot-flex-arrays=N" to mean "trailing arrays with N or more
> elements will NOT be treated like a flex array"?
>
> Then code with sockaddr can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #8 from John Kanapes ---
True. I was confused that sources were needed only by the GNAT subsystem.
I am working to recreate the issue in a smaller, more portable, easier to
understand code. I hope, I have a couple of days before
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
--- Comment #21 from Kees Cook ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #20)
> Well, I just "asked" for such an option the same way you asked for
> -fstrict-flex-arrays in comment #3, because I believe it would be useful to
> make the BOS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105964
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105964
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105964
Bug ID: 105964
Summary: [12/13 Regression] Return type deduction fails during
NTTP use of function dependent on template parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105101
--- Comment #24 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 13 Jun 2022, already5chosen at yahoo dot com via Gcc-bugs wrote:
> > For long double it's sysdeps/ieee754/soft-fp/s_fmal.c in glibc - some
> > adjustments would be needed to be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
--- Comment #20 from Martin Sebor ---
Well, I just "asked" for such an option the same way you asked for
-fstrict-flex-arrays in comment #3, because I believe it would be useful to
make the BOS improvements you're looking for available even to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105963
Bug ID: 105963
Summary: -Woverlength-strings: don't underline the entire
offending string
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105961
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
As well as the false positive, the diagnostic path is rather unreadable due to
inlining. I've filed a separate bug about this (PR 105962).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105962
Bug ID: 105962
Summary: Unhelpful diagnostics paths from analyzer in the face
of inlining
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105101
--- Comment #23 from Michael_S ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #22)
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2022, already5chosen at yahoo dot com via Gcc-bugs wrote:
>
> > > The function should be sqrtf128 (present in glibc 2.26 and later on
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105961
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105956
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
So far reduced to
template struct index_tuple;
template > struct build_number_seq;
template
struct build_number_seq>
: build_number_seq> {};
template struct build_number_seq<0, index_tuple> {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105961
--- Comment #2 from eggert at cs dot ucla.edu ---
Created attachment 53131
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53131=edit
reproducer for the bug (compressed with xz)
The uncompressed t.i was too large for bugzilla, so here's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105961
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to eggert from comment #0)
[...snip...]
> Compile the attached program (derived from bleeding-edge Emacs) with:
I'm not seeing an attachment - do you still have this file, and can you try
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105101
--- Comment #22 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 13 Jun 2022, already5chosen at yahoo dot com via Gcc-bugs wrote:
> > The function should be sqrtf128 (present in glibc 2.26 and later on
> > x86_64, x86, powerpc64le, ia64). I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105961
Bug ID: 105961
Summary: -Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value false positive
after "= {0}"
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105960
--- Comment #4 from M Welinder ---
And added to the link lines too, btw.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105960
M Welinder changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105101
--- Comment #21 from Michael_S ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #20)
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022, already5chosen at yahoo dot com via Gcc-bugs wrote:
>
> > On MSYS2 _Float128 and __float128 appears to be mostly the same thing,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105960
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105960
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
```
COMPILE="$CC -m32 -O2 -I. -Wall"
# Preprocessed files were created thus:
# $COMPILE -E crash32.c > crash32-preprocessed.c
# $COMPILE -E expref.c > expref-preprocessed.c
$COMPILE -c -o crash32.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105960
Bug ID: 105960
Summary: Crash in 32-bit mode
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105959
Bug ID: 105959
Summary: new test case
c-c++-common/diagnostic-format-sarif-file-4.c from
r13-967-g6cf276ddf22066 fails
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to John Kanapes from comment #2)
> The missing info, gcc -v -save-temps is provided as an attachment.
But we're still missing the code that triggers the bug.
A bug report that just says
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Line numbers in the source code aren't relevant here, you need to add the
-fsanitize=undefined flag to your link command to solve those undefined
references.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105958
Bug ID: 105958
Summary: Stray events emitted by state machine tests (e.g.
"'VAR' is NULL")
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105957
Bug ID: 105957
Summary: __n * sizeof(_Tp) might overflow under consteval
context for std::allocator
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105956
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105956
--- Comment #3 from Matheus Castanho ---
Sorry, looks like the original file was too large and didn't get attached when
I created the bug. I attached a gzip compressed version now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105956
--- Comment #2 from Matheus Castanho ---
Created attachment 53129
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53129=edit
pre-processed source generated by -freport-bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105956
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105930
--- Comment #14 from Linus Torvalds ---
(In reply to Samuel Neves from comment #13)
> Something simple like this -- https://godbolt.org/z/61orYdjK7 -- already
> exhibits the effect.
Yup.
That's a much better test-case. I think you should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105956
Bug ID: 105956
Summary: internal compiler error: in
iterative_hash_template_arg, at cp/pt.cc:1819
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105930
--- Comment #13 from Samuel Neves ---
Something simple like this -- https://godbolt.org/z/61orYdjK7 -- already
exhibits the effect.
Furthermore, and this also applies to the full BLAKE2b compression function, if
you replace all the xors in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105955
Bug ID: 105955
Summary: ICE when using __attribute__((__sysv_abi__)) on Cygwin
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
--- Comment #19 from Kees Cook ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #18)
> The zero size case exists (and is documented) solely as a substitute for
> flexible array members. Treating is as an ordinary array would disable that
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105101
--- Comment #20 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Sat, 11 Jun 2022, already5chosen at yahoo dot com via Gcc-bugs wrote:
> On MSYS2 _Float128 and __float128 appears to be mostly the same thing, mapped
> to the same library routines
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105954
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105954
Bug ID: 105954
Summary: ICE in gfc_element_size, at
fortran/target-memory.cc:132
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105953
Bug ID: 105953
Summary: [12/13 Regression] ICE in extract_insn, at
recog.cc:2791
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105952
Bug ID: 105952
Summary: [12/13 Regression] ICE in
sel_redirect_edge_and_branch, at sel-sched-ir.cc:5680
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105951
Bug ID: 105951
Summary: [12/13 Regression] ICE in emit_store_flag, at
expmed.cc:6027
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105930
--- Comment #12 from Linus Torvalds ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> Anyway, I think we need to understand what makes it spill that much more,
> and unfortunately the testcase is too large to find that out easily, I think
> we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #5 from John Kanapes ---
Thank you for taking the time to look at it, and responding so fast:)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #4 from John Kanapes ---
I don't know UBSan. What's more these are not user-friendly, compiler errors.
It reminds me of assemblers:( I need readable errors with line numbers,
otherwise I don't know what to change:(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #2 from John Kanapes ---
Hi,
The missing info, gcc -v -save-temps is provided as an attachment.
Of the flags, Wextra, -fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv
-fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations did nothing.
-fsanitize=undefined creates the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104777
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104777
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f2851a7cff4d74edca26d39c7bfa1264355a22ed
commit r10-10828-gf2851a7cff4d74edca26d39c7bfa1264355a22ed
Author: Marek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105927
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105927
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b3dd7d8b48227d3489039ca66b6c0ea2da743255
commit r13-1071-gb3dd7d8b48227d3489039ca66b6c0ea2da743255
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
--- Comment #18 from Martin Sebor ---
The zero size case exists (and is documented) solely as a substitute for
flexible array members. Treating is as an ordinary array would disable that
extension. It might be appropriate to provide a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104777
--- Comment #16 from Marek Polacek ---
I'll backport to 10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
Bug ID: 105950
Summary: > O2 optimization causes runtime (SIGILL) during main
initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 9.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105949
Bug ID: 105949
Summary: RFE: analyzer could warn about calls to vfuncs within
a ctor/dtor
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99667
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||105887
--- Comment #1 from David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105948
Bug ID: 105948
Summary: RFE: analyzer could check c++ placement-new sizes
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105947
Bug ID: 105947
Summary: RFE: -fanalyzer should complain about jumps through
NULL function pointers
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105941
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw ---
If you really wanted this to be made to work, I think you'd need to use spec
files. Then you could provide a spec for each supported linker. It still
wouldn't be trivial, but it seems to me it's the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104777
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105864
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102003
Wileam Yonatan Phan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wileamyp at outlook dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105877
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105864
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105931
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105943
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105863
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105946
Bug ID: 105946
Summary: [12/13 Regression] ICE in
maybe_warn_pass_by_reference, at
tree-ssa-uninit.cc:843
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105945
Bug ID: 105945
Summary: [12/13 Regression] ICE in maybe_gen_insn, at
optabs.cc:7956
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105944
Bug ID: 105944
Summary: [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE in
expand_LOOP_DIST_ALIAS, at internal-fn.cc:2648
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105943
Bug ID: 105943
Summary: [12/13 Regression] ICE in expand_LOOP_VECTORIZED, at
internal-fn.cc:2640
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105838
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.3.0
--- Comment #2 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105852
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105838
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105835
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Dead Code Elimination |[13 Regression] Dead Code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105834
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Dead Code Elimination |[13 Regression] Dead Code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105833
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105941
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105832
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Dead Code Elimination |[13 Regression] Dead Code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86339
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54525
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2016-01-04 00:00:00 |2022-6-13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104777
--- Comment #14 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #13)
> Please backport the patch also to gcc-10 branch.
9.4.0 fails for me on ubuntu-20.
8.5.0 also fails.
Please back-port to all possible
branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105942
Bug ID: 105942
Summary: [12 Regression] d: internal compiler error: in visit,
at d/expr.cc:945
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104777
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105934
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.5.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105941
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw ---
The correct thing to do would be to implement the option in lld. If lld claims
to be a replacement for ld, then it really should support all the command-line
options that ld supports.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105936
Stas Sergeev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |FIXED
--- Comment #6 from Stas Sergeev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105934
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 53127
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53127=edit
Restore atomic_fetch_{add,sub} partial specializations for pointers
This patch restores the partial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104777
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stsp at users dot
sourceforge.net
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105936
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105934
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Somewhat related:
The MSVC testsuite has an example using atomic_store that fails with
libstdc++:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105934
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think this is actually expected post-P0558, and I would prefer to treat that
paper as a DR, because the original spec for the atomic_xxx free functions was
weird and inconsistent. The partial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105930
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105936
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Digging a bit further with current gcc-10 branch...
Instrumenting a TLS address splitter in i386.md with some creative printfs:
(define_split
[(match_operand 0 "tls_address_pattern")]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105911
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
