https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
--- Comment #23 from Daniel Lundin ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #21)
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2023, daniel.lundin.mail at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs wrote:
>
> > First of all, it is questionable if gcc is still conforming after
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106977
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to ibuclaw from comment #6)
> There's r13-1113 with introduced the use of visible().
>
> Can't see anything odd about the virtual function declaration that would
> suggest there's a mismatch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108899
Bug ID: 108899
Summary: [13 Regression] ERROR: can't rename to
"saved-unsupported": command already exists on i386
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108273
--- Comment #3 from Kewen Lin ---
The attached patch can be bootstrapped and regress-tested and solve the
reported issue right after r13-5107-g6224db0e4d6d3b, but I can not reproduce
the failure with the latest trunk, interesting... I suspected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108273
--- Comment #2 from Kewen Lin ---
Created attachment 54512
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54512=edit
Consider debug insn in no_real_insns_p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108273
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-02-23
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108898
Bug ID: 108898
Summary: [13 Regression] Test introduced by
r13-6278-g3da77f217c8b2089ecba3eb201e727c3fcdcd19d
failed on i386
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108897
--- Comment #2 from danakj at orodu dot net ---
Thank you for the workaround!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85944
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danakj at orodu dot net
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108897
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108897
Bug ID: 108897
Summary: Comparing pointer to field in rvalue class is not
considered constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106977
ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106977
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13 Regression] slow |[11/12 Regression] slow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1370014f2ea02ec185cf1199027575916f79fe63
commit r13-6290-g1370014f2ea02ec185cf1199027575916f79fe63
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83670
Michael N. Moran changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mike at mnmoran dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108894
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
-fstrict-flex-array= option doesn't affect the sanitization, if you want strict
sanitization of bounds, you should use -fsanitize=bounds-strict rather than
-fsanitize=bounds.
Furthermore, it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #1 from Kees Cook ---
The corresponding Clang feature request is here:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/60928
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
Bug ID: 108896
Summary: provide "element_count" attribute to give more context
to __builtin_dynamic_object_size() and
-fsanitize=bounds
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108895
Bug ID: 108895
Summary: [13.0.1 (exp)] Fortran + gfx90a !$acc update device
produces a segfault.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108894
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108894
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108894
Kees Cook changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #54508|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108894
--- Comment #1 from Kees Cook ---
The matching Clang bug is: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/60926
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108894
Bug ID: 108894
Summary: -fsanitize=bounds missing bounds provided by
__builtin_dynamic_object_size()
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108893
--- Comment #4 from Jonny Grant ---
My apologies, I had understood attribute access read_only was different from
the attribute nonnull. So I filed a different report for this.
I didn't want to use __attribute__((nonnull)) because the optimizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #14 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #12)
> > Sure, it worked for the testcase because the STATEMENT_LIST only had two
> > stmts. I'm testing:
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #12)
> Sure, it worked for the testcase because the STATEMENT_LIST only had two
> stmts. I'm testing:
>
> --- a/gcc/c-family/c-gimplify.cc
> +++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108893
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #0)
>
> void f(const char * const str) __attribute__((access(read_only, 1)));
> void f(const char * const str)
> {
> __builtin_puts(str);
> }
>
> int main()
> {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108893
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108871
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 108893 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108893
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Isn't this the same as PR 108871 ?
Also, the access attribute does not imply the attribute nonnull; it may be
appropriate to add both attributes at the declaration of a function that
unconditionally
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108893
Bug ID: 108893
Summary: attribute access read_only
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #12 from Marek Polacek ---
Sure, it worked for the testcase because the STATEMENT_LIST only had two stmts.
I'm testing:
--- a/gcc/c-family/c-gimplify.cc
+++ b/gcc/c-family/c-gimplify.cc
@@ -516,7 +516,8 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #10)
> Another simple patch is
>
> --- a/gcc/c-family/c-gimplify.cc
> +++ b/gcc/c-family/c-gimplify.cc
> @@ -516,7 +516,7 @@ c_genericize_control_stmt (tree
thms: zlib zstd
gcc version 13.0.1 20230222 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Another simple patch is
--- a/gcc/c-family/c-gimplify.cc
+++ b/gcc/c-family/c-gimplify.cc
@@ -516,7 +516,7 @@ c_genericize_control_stmt (tree *stmt_p, int
*walk_subtrees, void *data,
tree t =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> It's not only "slow", it also produces a gigantic executable, the .original
> dump was 7.1GB when I stopped the compilation ...
Well, original dump for deeply
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108889
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||106089
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108889
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108891
Bug ID: 108891
Summary: libatomic: AArch64 SEQ_CST 16-byte load missing
barrier
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108830
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #0)
> There are also a huge number of spammy "'new_vals' is NULL" messages.
See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105958#c1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105958
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
A particularly bad example seems to be gcc.dg/analyzer/null-deref-pr108830.c:
https://godbolt.org/z/rabfxeaxz
which currently emits:
: In function 'apr_hash_merge':
:82:24: warning: dereference of NULL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
We generate HUGE trees for the div sanitization, but I notice that
c_genericize_control_r doesn't use pset, like cp_genericize_r does. So I think
the fix would be to add a hash_set to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108878
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 08:48:07AM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108878
>
> --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
> For the specific testcase I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108879
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||97110
--- Comment #1 from David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108890
Bug ID: 108890
Summary: Translation mistakes 2023
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108889
Bug ID: 108889
Summary: [12/13 Regression] (Re)Allocate in assignment shows
used uninitialized memory warning with -Wall if LHS is
unallocated
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96024
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:31303c9b5bab200754cdb7ef8cd91ae4918f3018
commit r13-6289-g31303c9b5bab200754cdb7ef8cd91ae4918f3018
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105329
--- Comment #29 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It adds a new symbol to the library, which is not usually considered an ABI
change, because it's backwards compatible. Compiling with a new GCC and linking
to an old libstdc++ is never supported anyway.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105329
--- Comment #28 from yan12125 <49tbwddbqeazdawz at chyen dot cc> ---
Thanks, so that commit changes ABI - objects built by patched GCC will not link
to unpatched libstdc++. I will stick to -Wno-restrict for now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108219
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
--- Comment #22 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I do however expect there may be cases in GCC 13 where constexpr
initializers of floating type are accepted that do not meet the definition
of arithmetic constant expressions, since GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
--- Comment #21 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 22 Feb 2023, daniel.lundin.mail at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs wrote:
> First of all, it is questionable if gcc is still conforming after the change
> discussed here and implemented
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
Bug ID: 10
Summary: error: definition in block 26 follows the use
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
The C90/C99 difference is due to ubsan_instrument_shift:
193 /* For signed x << y, in C99 and later, the following:
194 (unsigned) x >> (uprecm1 - y)
195 if non-zero, is undefined. */
196
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108858
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 102633, which changed state.
Bug 102633 Summary: [11 Regression] warning for self-initialization despite
-Wno-init-self
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102633
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102633
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108886
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Why are you suggesting adding a check in two places when the first one just
calls the second one?
What would be the point of _GLIBCXX_DEBUG_PEDASSERT when there's already a
debug assertion there?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
FWIW, -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow,shift seems to be enough to trigger
the runaway compilation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108854
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108887
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The ICE is actually in cgraph code, so it might as well be just some latent
cgraph bug triggered by the C++ changes.
What I see is that first_analyzed is set to a cgraph node for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108887
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-02-22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108887
Bug ID: 108887
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in
process_function_and_variable_attributes since
r13-3601
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108884
--- Comment #8 from Younan Zhang ---
Sorry for duplicate comments. Network issue :(
And thanks Patrik's explaination.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108884
--- Comment #7 from Younan Zhang ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #4)
> (In reply to Younan Zhang from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #1)
> > > #1 is neither a non-template friend declaration with a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108884
--- Comment #6 from Younan Zhang ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #4)
> (In reply to Younan Zhang from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #1)
> > > #1 is neither a non-template friend declaration with a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108884
Younan Zhang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108886
Bug ID: 108886
Summary: Add basic_string throw logic_error when assigned a
nullptr
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108884
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Younan Zhang from comment #2)
> (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #1)
> > #1 is neither a non-template friend declaration with a requires-clause nor a
> > friend function template with a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108884
--- Comment #3 from Younan Zhang ---
(In reply to Younan Zhang from comment #2)
> (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #1)
> > #1 is neither a non-template friend declaration with a requires-clause nor a
> > friend function template with a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108884
--- Comment #2 from Younan Zhang ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #1)
> #1 is neither a non-template friend declaration with a requires-clause nor a
> friend function template with a constraint that depends on a template
> parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108884
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108885
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108885
Bug ID: 108885
Summary: Missing sanitization checks for optimized integer
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108854
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108631
Arthur Cohen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108883
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 54506
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54506=edit
gcc13-pr108883.patch
Untested fix on the compiler side of emit_support_tinfos.
That said, these fundamental types
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108884
Bug ID: 108884
Summary: [temp.friends]/9: Should constraint friends declared
in class scope differ with definition out of scope?
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
--- Comment #20 from Daniel Lundin ---
Further info about the "ARM32 port bug".
In case you write code like `(uint32_t)_pointer` and the port happens
to use 32 bit pointers, the non-conforming cast is let through.
In case you cast to an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108882
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108835
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108874
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #3)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > The regression is probably rtl-optimization/target specific since we never
> > had this kind of pattern detected on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108874
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> The regression is probably rtl-optimization/target specific since we never
> had this kind of pattern detected on the tree/GIMPLE level and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108883
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Can we split them out to a separate CU that we can build with -msse2?
>
> That is, does it work to simply add tinfo-x86-sse2.o by compiling
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108883
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
--- Comment #1 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106258
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fb5365907317551cf9e4661aa78dd4f773e7a18a
commit r13-6273-gfb5365907317551cf9e4661aa78dd4f773e7a18a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
Daniel Lundin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.lundin.mail at gmail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107925
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed the patch on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-February/612506.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108883
Bug ID: 108883
Summary: [13 Regression] ABI problems with
_Float16/std::bfloat16_t rtti symbols on i?86
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108883
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108854
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org
---
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
