https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65782
--- Comment #8 from Kai Tietz ---
Hmm, that behavior of gcc seems to be indeed pretty bad. The SEH commands for
registers above index 15 (0..15) for xmm? are indeed undefined, and even worse,
can't be coded proper into the seh table correctly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58372
--- Comment #16 from Kai Tietz ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #15)
> (In reply to David Grayson from comment #14)
>
> > Does anyone have an idea of how to fix this bug for real? What values
> > should crtl->preferred_stack_boundary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85238
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52792
--- Comment #5 from Kai Tietz ---
For the c++ sample:
typedef struct agg { long a; long b; long c; } agg;
class abc {
long m;
public:
agg foo(long a, long b, long c);
agg boo(void);
};
agg abc::foo(long a, long b, long c)
{
agg r =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52792
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-* x86_64-*-*
--- Comment #4 from Kai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52792
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84527
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84527
--- Comment #4 from Kai Tietz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> ..., but that just means it is not the right code for f1 and f3.
Right, that produced code depends on the sign of the condition arguments seems
to be pretty wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84527
--- Comment #1 from Kai Tietz ---
For x86 we produce for sample:
movl8(%esp), %eax
cmpl%eax, 4(%esp)
setge %al
movzbl %al, %eax
leal-1(%eax,%eax), %eax
ret
which could be expressed
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The following sample:
int foo(int a, int b)
{
return a < b ? -1 : 1;
}
gets translated to
...
xorl%eax, %eax
cmpl%edx, %
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66488
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70869
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #38472|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71082
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70869
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #38469|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70869
--- Comment #11 from Kai Tietz ---
this doesn't seem to be related with my patch at all. It looks more like you
are trying to re-use an old build tree. Patch is made against trunk.
Nevertheless should work for 6.x branch, too.
I build in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70869
--- Comment #9 from Kai Tietz ---
Created attachment 38470
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38470=edit
updated patch
Well, DECL_P check is indeed superfluous, but I added to point out we are
checking here for declarations.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70869
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||john.ettedgui at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70869
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #5 from Kai Tietz ---
it is a duplicate.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 70869 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70847
--- Comment #4 from Kai Tietz ---
As side-note: There is something pretty fishy in tree-pretty-print.c for
OBJ_TYPE_REF, too. We do here recurse endless. Simply add to command line
'-fdump-tree-original' for reproducing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70847
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62109
--- Comment #11 from Kai Tietz ---
(In reply to David from comment #10)
> (In reply to Kai Tietz from comment #5)
> > This patch is clear stage 1 material.
>
> We're in stage 1. Is it time?
Sure, patch for it is welcome.
> The patch adds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51726
--- Comment #9 from Kai Tietz ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Fri Oct 2 08:06:52 2015
New Revision: 228370
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228370=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/51726
* config/i386/winnt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51726
--- Comment #10 from Kai Tietz ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Fri Oct 2 08:08:38 2015
New Revision: 228371
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228371=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/51726
* g++.dg/ext/selectany2.C: Allow uninitialized
||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #1 from Kai Tietz ---
This report is a duplicate of PR/51726.
Fix for it also resolves this problem.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 51726 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51726
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thiago at kde dot org
--- Comment #8 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51726
--- Comment #6 from Kai Tietz ---
Created attachment 36427
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36427=edit
Suggested patch
I will do some further testing with that patch, and later on send patch
upstream with a testcase for the
||2015-09-22
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Kai Tietz ---
This issue is related to output in gcc for SEH-prologue pseudos. It tries to
output registers not being supported 8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54895
--- Comment #12 from Kai Tietz ---
This bug got partially fixed for x86 (32-bit) by PR/44282. For x64 we have the
issue that there is made no difference between different calling-conventions,
as all variants are treated as standard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54412
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Last reconfirmed|
||2015-09-11
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Kai Tietz ---
I added to mingw-w64's libwinpthread a work-a-round for this sloopy code in
libgomp. Nevertheless issue should
||2015-09-11
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from Kai Tietz ---
I added to mingw-w64's libwinpthread a work-a-round for this sloppy code.
Nevertheless the issue should be fixed IMO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67546
--- Comment #3 from Kai Tietz ---
Thanks Rainer for pointing on this. Yes, comment wasn't intended for this bug.
I added comment to proper pr ...
This issue is related to the fact that msvcrt doesn't provide unsetenv (as it
doesn't provide
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67546
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-w64-mingw32 |*-*-mingw32
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67546
--- Comment #6 from Kai Tietz ---
Initially in PR/67363 just the missing strndup due failed libiberty-linking was
noticed. Later comments are duplicate of this.
So feel free to mark one of these bugs as duplicate, if you prefer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66030
--- Comment #10 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yeah, thanks for working on that. With extensions shown by Jouni, the patch is
preapproved. Jonathan, will you take care?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59759
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559
--- Comment #35 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Mon May 4 10:16:23 2015
New Revision: 222759
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222759root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/65559
* lto-wrapper.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559
--- Comment #36 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Mon May 4 10:23:55 2015
New Revision: 222761
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222761root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backmerge from trunk.
PR lto/65559
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65995
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559
--- Comment #31 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #23)
The patch looks pretty obvious to me - though I wonder if archives still
work on x86_64-linux after it (or rather I wonder how
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559
--- Comment #22 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I will be able to test this tomorrow (or this evening) for a linux bootstrap.
Patch tested is:
Index: lto-wrapper.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559
--- Comment #18 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Does the following patch fixes your problem?
Index: lto-wrapper.c
===
--- lto-wrapper.c (Revision 69)
+++ lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57335
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ktietz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49171
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ktietz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61240
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65891
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56868
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65867
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559
--- Comment #15 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
That is my issue too. I try to reproduce this issue with cross and native.
But I see some issues only in combination with upstream binutils, and here only
in native case, which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65568
--- Comment #2 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Issue is related to -fms-extensions. This option is for mingw targets on by
default. By the following patch issue in testsuite gets solved (it makes sense
to apply this patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65562
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65573
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65572
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65566
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65581
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65581
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at ucw dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64972
--- Comment #17 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Mar 25 15:05:02 2015
New Revision: 221665
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221665root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libgomp/64972
* oacc-parallel.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64972
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65560
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65564
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65561
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65564
--- Comment #2 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
As more I look as more I guess it is related to recent pic-code changes in
i386.c for Darwin.
I will check at what places we now assume that for PIC (especially for UNSPEC
UNSPEC_PCREL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64972
--- Comment #10 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I agree that suggested patch changes here behavior on non LP64 targets.
Nevertheless it would be something to live by until we reach stage 1 to address
this more accurate.
To us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64972
--- Comment #13 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Rainer: does following patch works for you?
Index: oacc-parallel.c
===
--- oacc-parallel.c(Revision 221640)
+++ oacc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64972
--- Comment #15 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ok, I am fine. So patch should be something like:
Index: oacc-parallel.c
===
--- oacc-parallel.c(Revision 221640
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64972
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.3
Known
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64972
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65523
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8270
--- Comment #57 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to doug mcilroy from comment #56)
(In reply to Kai Tietz from comment #55)
Comment #55 overlooks the Standard's translation phase 1, which replaces an
implementation-defined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62109
--- Comment #9 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to David from comment #8)
(In reply to Kai Tietz from comment #7)
The first code block in comment #6 is what is in the code now. As you can
see, it already has the #define
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17729
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62109
--- Comment #7 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I agree that we change it to
#define __GTHR_W32_InterlockedCompareExchange InterlockedCompareExchange
not sure if we actually should error out here at all. We might want to remove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56636
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62109
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65390
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52579
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65323
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65238
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61207
--- Comment #9 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
well, it might be same issue, but on x64 target the testcase of comment #6
works without issues.
As SRA seems to be involved here, the changes on trunk for DOM might be the
solution.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65216
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||madars+gccbug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307
--- Comment #7 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Well, it looked like the same issue by inspection dumps, as folding issue
happens in reassoc-pass. Of course it might be that forward-prop patch is the
actual issue.
I noticed for -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15212
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65288
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65277
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65130
--- Comment #12 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I confirm that bug is fixed with that patch. Only for the case that trying to
link with objects created with prior revision will still fail. Later might be
acceptable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61916
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64212
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||timothygu99
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65277
--- Comment #3 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
221040(In reply to Kai Tietz from comment #1)
It is caused by r214422
No, I think this started with r221040.
Yes, it got shown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65038
--- Comment #6 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Fri Feb 27 13:19:38 2015
New Revision: 221059
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221059root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/65038
* config.in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65038
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65038
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35330
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57982
--- Comment #3 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The problem here is the use of weak on pe-coff. The change you see on gcc is
just addressing the fact that for 64-bit the weak symbol never can get 0 due
relocation-limitations.
We try
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35330
--- Comment #13 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Fri Feb 27 10:44:43 2015
New Revision: 221053
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221053root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-02-27 Kai Tietz kti...@redhat.com
PR c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65038
--- Comment #3 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Fri Feb 27 12:05:02 2015
New Revision: 221055
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221055root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/65038
* config.in: Regenerated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65038
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
1 - 100 of 844 matches
Mail list logo
