https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111268
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110989
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110817
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110817
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #14)
> So I suspecting it is this pattern:
> /* -(type)!A -> (type)A - 1. */
> (simplify
> (negate (convert?:s (logical_inverted_value:s @0)))
> (if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111269
--- Comment #3 from Alejandro Colomar ---
On 2023-09-01 18:57, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111269
>
> Andrew Pinski changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111269
--- Comment #2 from Alejandro Colomar ---
Hi Andrew,
On 2023-09-01 18:55, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> It is pointing to the whole expression and just the outermost operator, || .
That's what I suspected.
>
> Now the C++ front-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111050
--- Comment #2 from TC ---
The impacted members we observed are `_Hash_node_value_base::_M_valptr` and
`_Hash_node_value_base::_M_v`. I think the layout of `_Hash_node` didn't
change.
And I'm not seeing why fixing this will require breaking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111272
--- Comment #2 from Paul Keir ---
Thanks. The `-Winvalid-constexpr` mentioned there is a helpful workaround.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110817
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #17)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #16)
> > Or just change ssa_name_has_boolean_range to use gimple_zero_one_valued_p
> > instead:
> >
> > extern bool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107876
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110817
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #16)
> Or just change ssa_name_has_boolean_range to use gimple_zero_one_valued_p
> instead:
>
> extern bool gimple_zero_one_valued_p (tree t, tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111264
--- Comment #9 from Eric Feng ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #4)
>
> If we move past the difference in semantics of the idioms in the patch, I
> still don't see why there actually was error for the original syntax. There
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110572
peter0x44 at disroot dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter0x44 at disroot dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111273
Bug ID: 111273
Summary: Spurious array-bounds error when copying data using
_GLIBCXX_DEBUG iterators
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110817
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
Or just change ssa_name_has_boolean_range to use gimple_zero_one_valued_p
instead:
extern bool gimple_zero_one_valued_p (tree t, tree (*valueize)(tree));
bool
ssa_name_has_boolean_range (tree op)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111270
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110817
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #14)
> Even more:
> bool
> ssa_name_has_boolean_range (tree op)
> {
> gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (op) == SSA_NAME);
>
> /* Boolean types always have a range [0..1].
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110817
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111272
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111270
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The correct git blame output is:
105c2795b0d6 gcc/config/i386/i386-options.c (Jan Hubicka 2019-07-23
09:35:18 + 3037) if (ix86_tune_features [X86_TUNE_AVOID_256FMA_CHAINS])
eef81eefcdc2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111270
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is nothing to do with me, g:d4ba3b369 doesn't touch that file at all, and
git blame doesn't show that commit for me. Do you have a shallow clone maybe,
and d4ba3b369 is simply the first commit in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31059
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6f06152541d62ae7c8579b7d7bf552be19e15b05
commit r14-3633-g6f06152541d62ae7c8579b7d7bf552be19e15b05
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111050
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110817
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #12)
> Interesting, all the gcc's starting from gcc-6 up to gcc-13 at -O0 to -O3
> (including 32bit and 64bit targets) seem to "PASS" on this testcase.
>
> ... wait,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105948
--- Comment #3 from Benjamin Priour ---
I believe the above patch resolves this PR.
I'm letting it sip in trunk for a few days before marking it as solved.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111272
Bug ID: 111272
Summary: Truncated error messages with -std=c++23 and
-std=c++26
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105948
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Benjamin Priour :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e7b267444045c507654a2a3f758efee5d5b550df
commit r14-3632-ge7b267444045c507654a2a3f758efee5d5b550df
Author: benjamin priour
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94355
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Benjamin Priour :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e7b267444045c507654a2a3f758efee5d5b550df
commit r14-3632-ge7b267444045c507654a2a3f758efee5d5b550df
Author: benjamin priour
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111264
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111264
--- Comment #7 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
I don't think it's worthwhile to keep this open, as I'm pretty sure I fixed it
for all targets, as the cause wasn't target-related. Otherwise, reopen; if
adding a sarcastic comment, then preferably
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111264
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d3dd69706af4c086cb3385ff1f321887b91f49fb
commit r14-3631-gd3dd69706af4c086cb3385ff1f321887b91f49fb
Author: Hans-Peter Nilsson
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111264
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|analyzer|testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111262
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
$ git bisect bad 0c78240fd7d519fc
0c78240fd7d519fc27ca822f66a92f85edf43f70 is the first bad commit
commit 0c78240fd7d519fc27ca822f66a92f85edf43f70
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Thu Aug 24 15:10:46 2023
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111262
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
I am trying a bisection. Current range is g:d96659e34cdcf436
to g:603bdf906af6d42c, which is 11 commits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
--- Comment #11 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Alex Mohr from comment #10)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9)
> > I believe the only real issue is imprecise documentation: "It is a better
> > choice than -O0" has some caveats and it's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
--- Comment #10 from Alex Mohr ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9)
> I believe the only real issue is imprecise documentation: "It is a better
> choice than -O0" has some caveats and it's not always true.
Is there a way to explicitly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
--- Comment #9 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Alex Mohr from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> > A 4x slowdown isn't really acceptable IMHO. At that point, why not just use
> > -O0 instead?
>
> I've been using -O0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111269
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111269
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
--- Comment #8 from Alex Mohr ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> A 4x slowdown isn't really acceptable IMHO. At that point, why not just use
> -O0 instead?
I've been using -O0 for years. I was trying to move to -Og because of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> it shouldn't make much difference when single-stepping
> statements since the debugger should enter inlined bodies the same as
> not inlined bodies?
'step'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107137
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Solving this one is easier, just going with:
/* (nop_outer_cast)-(inner_cast)var -> -(outer_cast)(var)
if var is smaller in precision. */
(simplify
(convert (negate:s@1 (convert:s @0)))
(if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107765
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
So I have decided to solve the original testcase differently.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
A 4x slowdown isn't really acceptable IMHO. At that point, why not just use -O0
instead?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110879
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111271
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111270
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110879
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:419c423d3aeca754e47e1ce1bf707735603a90a3
commit r14-3627-g419c423d3aeca754e47e1ce1bf707735603a90a3
Author: Vladimir Palevich
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111077
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dcbec954fcba42d97760c6bd98a4c5618473ec93
commit r14-3625-gdcbec954fcba42d97760c6bd98a4c5618473ec93
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111271
Bug ID: 111271
Summary: gcc/fortran/trans-expr.cc:1134:8: warning: duplicated
‘if’ condition [-Wduplicated-cond]
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111270
Bug ID: 111270
Summary: gcc/config/i386/i386-options.cc:3039:8: warning:
duplicated ‘if ’ condition [-Wduplicated-cond]
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to xu...@eswincomputing.com from comment #1)
> backport
> https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/
> 7f26e76c9848aeea9ec10ea701a6168464a4a9c2
> to gcc-13, should be fixed now.
I can confirm this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104661
--- Comment #3 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Related discussion: https://stackoverflow.com/a/77021213/7325599
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
is there a version available for testing, rebased to trunk (the one I saw from
Aug 19th pretty much fails to apply for most entries)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111264
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> You are mostly correct.
> In C++17, Copy elision is guaranteed to be done here while in earlier
> versions it is not and earlier versions of C++ require a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111269
Bug ID: 111269
Summary: Confusing location of error in source code
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111069
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cd37325b8d500bf4021692620686572d5ffb0868
commit r14-3624-gcd37325b8d500bf4021692620686572d5ffb0868
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111268
--- Comment #3 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
For reference
% /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/gcc -march=armv8.2-a+sve -O2 -c m.c && echo
"success"
success
with
% cat m.c
#pragma GCC aarch64 "arm_sve.h"
svbool_t
foo (svint8_t a, svint8_t b, svbool_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111268
--- Comment #1 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
Created attachment 55830
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55830=edit
preprocessed source
% /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/g++ -O2 -g -DNDEBUG -c testcase.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111268
--- Comment #2 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
% /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/g++ --version
g++ (Debian 20230811-1) 14.0.0 20230811 (experimental) [master
r14-3139-g68783211f66]
Copyright (C) 2023 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111268
Bug ID: 111268
Summary: internal compiler error: in to_constant, at
poly-int.h:504
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111267
Bug ID: 111267
Summary: Codegen regression from i386 argument passing changes
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111017
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111017
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2f8ccacd41a45bccf3e19625c0fbd2627472b45e
commit r12-9841-g2f8ccacd41a45bccf3e19625c0fbd2627472b45e
Author: Tobias Burnus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19832
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c2d3211d580369b75200fbdd7b854d30460e0aba
commit r14-3623-gc2d3211d580369b75200fbdd7b854d30460e0aba
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110915
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b8df57b3221aac70f22fb5c93d0b95bf22fded90
commit r14-3622-gb8df57b3221aac70f22fb5c93d0b95bf22fded90
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104167
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f2eb6132c6951edf7960a82828c571a1b98a1a09
commit r14-3616-gf2eb6132c6951edf7960a82828c571a1b98a1a09
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110817
--- Comment #12 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> (In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #10)
> > Probably related, even simpler testcase, failing everywhere at -O0:
> >
> > $ cat testcase.c
> > typedef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|13.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:207c507499d23f0176cbfdfe96d3cd50dec39584
commit r14-3609-g207c507499d23f0176cbfdfe96d3cd50dec39584
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110817
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #10)
> Probably related, even simpler testcase, failing everywhere at -O0:
>
> $ cat testcase.c
> typedef unsigned long __attribute__((__vector_size__ (8))) V;
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110817
--- Comment #10 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Probably related, even simpler testcase, failing everywhere at -O0:
$ cat testcase.c
typedef unsigned long __attribute__((__vector_size__ (8))) V;
int
main (void)
{
V v = ~((V) { } <=0);
if (v[0])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111266
Bug ID: 111266
Summary: Missing -Wanalyzer-out-of-bounds for concrete offset
overwrite.
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
This mailing list is for automated email from our bug tracker, it's
not for reporting bugs directly. Emails sent to this list are likely
to be missed, and definitely won't get entered into the bug tracker.
Please use Bugzilla to report bugs, as described at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23970
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Unswitching does this as a separate transform now, the "hoist guards"
transform.
It's even done completely separate now:
unsigned int
tree_ssa_unswitch_loops (function *fun)
{
bool changed_unswitch =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
The problem is that -Og aimed at solving two problems that are often in
conflict with each other - improving the debugging experience _and_ runtime
performance.
For the second goal it started as -O1 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111261
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The FE already has to do lookup for s in that initializer, so it knows that
another member was found.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111261
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> In fact with trunk we diagnose this properly with -std=c++17 but not
> -std=c++20.
So it's probably because c++17 uses extern template for std::string and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111260
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #1 from
Hello,
we ran into an issue with the following (rather benign) C++ snippet:
#include
#include
struct Foo {
void Bar() ;
std::mutex some_lock;
std::atomic some_number;
};
void Foo::Bar() {
some_lock.lock();
some_number++;
some_lock.unlock();
}
When compiling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111265
Bug ID: 111265
Summary: Compiler segfault with character array in deferred
type, when returned by a function
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111261
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111258
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111264
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||testsuite-fail
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111261
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19832
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19832
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3d86e7f4a8aef1b864a51660825597eafe9059b1
commit r14-3606-g3d86e7f4a8aef1b864a51660825597eafe9059b1
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date:
89 matches
Mail list logo
