https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108681
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108679
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-02-06
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108677
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108675
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
These tests are known to be a bit awkwardly implemented to check for
optimizations done ...
There might be a better way to provide definitions of fprintf, but is it
possible to short-circuit those
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108667
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Yes, having the original code as well would be nice.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108661
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108656
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
In general we avoid disallowing attribute combinations that at least in theory
make sense. pure/const are about memory side-effects while returns_twice is
about control flow, so in this regard I don't see
On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 10:16 PM Michael Meissner via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> These patches were originally posted on November 10th. Segher has asked that
> I
> repost them. These patches are somewhat changed since the original posting to
> address some of the comments.
>
>
On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 9:15 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> We ICE on the following testcase, because ivcanon calls
> gimple_build_builtin_unreachable but doesn't expect it would need vops.
> BUILT_IN_UNREACHABLE_TRAP I've introduced yesterday doesn't need
> vops and should be
On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 9:35 PM Roger Sayle wrote:
>
>
> This patch (primarily) documents the VEC_PERM_EXPR tree code in
> generic.texi. For ease of review, it is provided below as a pair
> of diffs. The first contains just the new text added to describe
> VEC_PERM_EXPR, the second tidies up
On 1/18/23 10:44, i.nixman--- via Gcc-patches wrote:
hello again!
the final version of the path for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108350
successfully bootstraped for x86_64-mingw32 and x86_64-linux.
could anyone apply it please?
best!
Looks good to me, please supply the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42566
Sergey Fedorov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vital.had at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61638
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jack Adrian Zappa from comment #9)
>
> Suggest fix is to either:
>
> 1. Change the phase where this warning/error/ignored is tested so that the
> #pragma GCC diagnostic is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61638
Jack Adrian Zappa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||adrianh.bsc at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108681
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Summary|gcc hangs
On Sun, 2023-02-05 at 16:31 +0100, Alejandro Colomar via Libc-alpha wrote:
> The only correct way to use different types in an API is
> through a union.
I don't think this statement is true (in general). Technically we can
write something like this:
struct sockaddr { ... };
struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108681
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 54411
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54411=edit
unreduced Testcase
From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vzext_vf2-1.C: New test.
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vzext_vf2-2.C: New test.
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vzext_vf2-3.C: New test.
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vzext_vf2_mu-1.C: New test.
From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vzext_vf4-1.C: New test.
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vzext_vf4-2.C: New test.
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vzext_vf4-3.C: New test.
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vzext_vf4_mu-1.C: New test.
From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vzext_vf8-1.C: New test.
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vzext_vf8-2.C: New test.
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vzext_vf8-3.C: New test.
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vzext_vf8_mu-1.C: New test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108681
Bug ID: 108681
Summary: gcc hangs compiling opencv/channels_combine.cpp for
aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/unop_v_constraint-2.c: New test.
---
.../riscv/rvv/base/unop_v_constraint-2.c | 132 ++
1 file changed, 132 insertions(+)
create mode 100644
From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsext_vf2-1.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsext_vf2-2.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsext_vf2-3.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsext_vf2_m-1.c: New test.
From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsext_vf4-1.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsext_vf4-2.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsext_vf4-3.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsext_vf4_m-1.c: New test.
From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsext_vf8-1.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsext_vf8-2.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsext_vf8-3.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsext_vf8_m-1.c: New test.
From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vzext_vf2-1.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vzext_vf2-2.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vzext_vf2-3.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vzext_vf2_m-1.c: New test.
From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vzext_vf4-1.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vzext_vf4-2.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vzext_vf4-3.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vzext_vf4_m-1.c: New test.
From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vzext_vf8-1.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vzext_vf8-2.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vzext_vf8-3.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vzext_vf8_m-1.c: New test.
From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/riscv/iterators.md: Add sign_extend/zero_extend.
* config/riscv/riscv-vector-builtins-bases.cc (class ext): New class.
(BASE): Ditto.
* config/riscv/riscv-vector-builtins-bases.h: Add vsext/vzext support.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94810
--- Comment #13 from Murugesan Nagarajan ---
@Andrew,
Thank you for updating current bug id: 94810
Old bug reported:
On: Mon 27-Apr-2020 09:44:52 PM UTC
Old Bug URL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107461
--- Comment #13 from Patrick Palka ---
hb-aat-layout.cc.i and the comment #9 test should be accepted on trunk again
now, backport to the 12 branch to follow.
The comment #7 testcase I think is invalid because GCC incorrectly accepts the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107461
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:31924665c86d47af6b1f22a74f594f2e1dc0ed2d
commit r13-5707-g31924665c86d47af6b1f22a74f594f2e1dc0ed2d
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
On 1/24/23 17:49, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 03:19:54PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 1/19/23 21:03, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 01:02:02PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 1/18/23 20:13, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 04:07:59PM -0500, Jason
On Sun, Feb 5, 2023 at 1:21 AM Björn Schäpers wrote:
>
> Am 24.01.2023 um 19:32 schrieb Ian Lance Taylor:
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 10:12 AM Eli Zaretskii via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> From: Ian Lance Taylor
> >>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 09:58:10 -0800
> >>> Cc: g...@hazardy.de,
On Sun, Feb 5, 2023 at 1:21 AM Björn Schäpers wrote:
>
> Am 24.01.2023 um 19:32 schrieb Ian Lance Taylor:
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 10:12 AM Eli Zaretskii via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> From: Ian Lance Taylor
> >>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 09:58:10 -0800
> >>> Cc: g...@hazardy.de,
On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 12:59:48AM +0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hi Rich,
>
> On 2/6/23 00:43, Rich Felker wrote:
> >On Sun, Feb 05, 2023 at 04:28:36PM +0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> >>As discussed before, and Bastien and I seem to agree, ideally we should
> >>define the following types:
>
Hi Rich,
On 2/6/23 00:43, Rich Felker wrote:
On Sun, Feb 05, 2023 at 04:28:36PM +0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
As discussed before, and Bastien and I seem to agree, ideally we should
define the following types:
struct sockaddr_storage {
union {
struct {
On Sun, Feb 05, 2023 at 04:28:36PM +0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> As discussed before, and Bastien and I seem to agree, ideally we should
> define the following types:
>
> struct sockaddr_storage {
> union {
> struct {
> sa_family_t ss_family;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108662
--- Comment #1 from Jan Dubiec ---
Created attachment 54410
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54410=edit
Proposed patch
Snapshot gcc-13-20230205 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/13-20230205/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 13 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108672
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108450
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108592
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108592
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d042f118798ae0648b45f97e63b0e5ab7c82c8ef
commit r13-5705-gd042f118798ae0648b45f97e63b0e5ab7c82c8ef
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108450
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Mikael Morin
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:32502d82a5b54ca5b8e524df9fcad851727dc54a
commit r12-9108-g32502d82a5b54ca5b8e524df9fcad851727dc54a
Author: Mikael Morin
On 2/5/23 11:33 AM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Early gentle ping.
Am 30.01.23 um 22:55 schrieb Harald Anlauf via Gcc-patches:
Dear Fortranners,
the subject says it all: in some cases we emit redundant integer division
truncation warnings (2 or 4), where just one would have been
On 2/3/23 15:51, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2023, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 1/27/23 17:02, Patrick Palka wrote:
This PR illustrates that __builtin_is_constant_evaluated currently acts
as an optimization barrier for our speculative constexpr evaluation,
since we don't want to
r-8`. The
behaviour is the same with the current git version as well as with GCC release
11.3, so the problem has been around for some time.
$ /opt/gcc-git/bin/gfortran --version | head -n 1
GNU Fortran (GCC) 13.0.1 20230205 (experimental)
$ /opt/gcc-git/bin/gfortran main.f90
$ ./a.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108677
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Is the confusing part is the fmaddsub instruction?
Early gentle ping.
Am 30.01.23 um 22:55 schrieb Harald Anlauf via Gcc-patches:
Dear Fortranners,
the subject says it all: in some cases we emit redundant integer division
truncation warnings (2 or 4), where just one would have been sufficient.
This is solved by using gfc_warning instead of
On 2/5/23 09:57, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/4/23 20:41, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/4/23 20:08, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/4/23 15:31, Patrick Palka wrote:
After r13-5684-g59e0376f607805 the (pruned) callee of a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108609
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1e60e9124543fd002f3e6dad8172cff8aa1b24b3
commit r12-9107-g1e60e9124543fd002f3e6dad8172cff8aa1b24b3
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108527
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:511928102dc9fa3f9c377e01f9bfb605b4995a61
commit r12-9106-g511928102dc9fa3f9c377e01f9bfb605b4995a61
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108677
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |missed-optimization
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108678
--- Comment #2 from Brecht Sanders
---
I would love to give it a go if only I knew where to add the support.
I actually got a Windows on ARM device hoping I could figure it out, bit it
looks I will need tome help.
The "Unknown tune used in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108679
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108502
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108420
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108529
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108453
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108529
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b66a0f2fecb4dc1ac5960ff5d630ab8f672b4106
commit r10-11198-gb66a0f2fecb4dc1ac5960ff5d630ab8f672b4106
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106209
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b523b58690c84b04cc9695d2d652611beb6f28ca
commit r10-11197-gb523b58690c84b04cc9695d2d652611beb6f28ca
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108421
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:068fce9743ec9f3181c189cb8d03a982ca30eb7e
commit r10-11194-g068fce9743ec9f3181c189cb8d03a982ca30eb7e
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108501
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d4bb7751af090736fb4a3bd7278d7094f35e02e4
commit r10-11196-gd4bb7751af090736fb4a3bd7278d7094f35e02e4
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108502
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c67d76171e87d3ce364400684a654712047058b1
commit r10-11195-gc67d76171e87d3ce364400684a654712047058b1
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108420
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b14dcf0c99fab065e11ec87984475580b649edeb
commit r10-11193-gb14dcf0c99fab065e11ec87984475580b649edeb
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108453
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:841e585ad936624f2d080512a9f6244b49e71969
commit r10-11192-g841e585ad936624f2d080512a9f6244b49e71969
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108678
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I have not seen anyone step up to patch GCC for aarch64-mingw yet.
Most aarch64 developers don't use Windows at all. There is some support being
worked on for aarch64 darwin (Mac OS) though.
Indeed looking at http://pw32.sourceforge.net indicates this has gone the
way of the dodo.
Pushed.
Gerald
gcc/ChangeLog:
* doc/install.texi (Specific): Remove PW32.
---
gcc/doc/install.texi | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/doc/install.texi
ftp.uvsq.fr has been unreachable for an extensive period of time
(tested from different networks).
Thank you for your service in the past, ftpma...@uvsq.fr!
Gerald
---
htdocs/mirrors.html | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/htdocs/mirrors.html b/htdocs/mirrors.html
index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108678
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
See Also|
Jakub, ping
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 12:50 i.nixman--- via Gcc-patches <
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> hello,
>
> could someone look at the patch attached please?
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-January/610392.html
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108679
Bug ID: 108679
Summary: ice in modify_call, at ipa-param-manipulation.cc:656
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Formatted version:
BUGS
sockaddr_storage was designed back when strict aliasing wasn’t a prob‐
lem. Back then, one would define a variable of that type, and then ac‐
cess it as any of the other sockaddr_* types, depending on the value of
the first member. This
As discussed before, and Bastien and I seem to agree, ideally we should
define the following types:
struct sockaddr_storage {
union {
struct {
sa_family_t ss_family;
};
struct sockaddr_in sin;
struct sockaddr_in6
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 2/4/23 20:41, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On 2/4/23 20:08, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2/4/23 15:31, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > > > After r13-5684-g59e0376f607805 the (pruned) callee of a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108678
Bug ID: 108678
Summary: Windows on ARM64 platform target aarch64-w64-mingw32
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108677
Bug ID: 108677
Summary: wrong vectorization (when copy constructor is
present?)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108676
--- Comment #1 from Ivan Sorokin ---
I added a broken link to godbolt, here is a valid one:
https://godbolt.org/z/EE5eezW1r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108676
Bug ID: 108676
Summary: GCC prints function signature incorrectly
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023, 08:07 Christopher Bazley, wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 at 23:53, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, 21:23 Christopher Bazley, wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 at 20:40, Jonathan Wakely
>>> wrote:
>>>
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, 17:01
Am 24.01.2023 um 19:32 schrieb Ian Lance Taylor:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 10:12 AM Eli Zaretskii via Gcc-patches
wrote:
From: Ian Lance Taylor
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 09:58:10 -0800
Cc: g...@hazardy.de, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, g...@gcc.gnu.org
I'd rather that the patch look like the
Am 24.01.2023 um 19:32 schrieb Ian Lance Taylor:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 10:12 AM Eli Zaretskii via Gcc-patches
wrote:
From: Ian Lance Taylor
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 09:58:10 -0800
Cc: g...@hazardy.de, gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
I'd rather that the patch look like the
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 at 23:53, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, 21:23 Christopher Bazley, wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 at 20:40, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, 17:01 Christopher Bazley via Gcc,
>>> wrote:
>>>
Does the lack of support
85 matches
Mail list logo
