Quoting gcc/cp/mangle.c@34394:
/* Non-terminal function-type. NODE is a FUNCTION_TYPE or
METHOD_TYPE. If INCLUDE_RETURN_TYPE is non-zero, the return type
is mangled before the parameter types.
function-type ::= F [Y] bare-function-type E */
static void
write_function_type
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:21:18AM +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Quoting gcc/cp/mangle.c@34394:
See http://gcc.gnu.org/PR2316 ?
Jakub
Hi,
I ran into PR60947, in which GCC understands the return value of
memset is the first argument passed in, according to standard, then
does optimization like below:
movip, sp
stmfdsp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7, r8, r9, r10, fp, ip, lr, pc}
subfp, ip, #4
subsp, sp, #20
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Bin.Cheng amker.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I ran into PR60947, in which GCC understands the return value of
memset is the first argument passed in, according to standard, then
does optimization like below:
movip, sp
stmfdsp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7,
Thanks for elaborating.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Bin.Cheng amker.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I ran into PR60947, in which GCC understands the return value of
memset is the first argument passed in,
Dear GCC team,
thank you very much for your many years efforts
in developing and improving the compiler.
I've tried to download the latest 4.7.4 version from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/releases/gcc-4.7.4
and couldn't successfully check the MD5 sum,
which is given there in the md5.sum file.
Sergey Boldyrev sergey.boldy...@hrz.tu-darmstadt.de writes:
I've tried to download the latest 4.7.4 version from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/releases/gcc-4.7.4
and couldn't successfully check the MD5 sum,
which is given there in the md5.sum file.
gcc-4.7.4.tar.gz appears OK,
but
On 06/26/14 02:44, Bin.Cheng wrote:
Hi,
I ran into PR60947, in which GCC understands the return value of
memset is the first argument passed in, according to standard, then
does optimization like below:
movip, sp
stmfdsp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7, r8, r9, r10, fp, ip, lr, pc}
sub
Snapshot gcc-4.8-20140626 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8-20140626/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.8 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/26/14 02:44, Bin.Cheng wrote:
Hi,
I ran into PR60947, in which GCC understands the return value of
memset is the first argument passed in, according to standard, then
does optimization like below:
movip, sp
Are you saying we should better not do unit testing at the moment? (This is
perfectly fine with me, I am just verifying what you said)
Yes, I think we should better not to do it. It seems that unit-testing
isn't supported in gcc.
If we don't have a convenient way to do unit-testing, we need
On 27/06/2014 07:31, Roman Gareev wrote:
Are you saying we should better not do unit testing at the moment? (This is
perfectly fine with me, I am just verifying what you said)
Yes, I think we should better not to do it. It seems that unit-testing
isn't supported in gcc.
If we don't have a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61582
--- Comment #7 from Tim Shen timshen at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(.*{100}{100}{100}) seems to be a stack overflow. It's because regex executor
uses recursion. It could be fixed (not segfault but memory exhaustion) by using
a std::stack and simulate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61601
--- Comment #2 from Tim Shen timshen at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
Tim, how hard would it be to hardcode limits somewhere for these cases?
It's easy. 6 lines. I'll propose a patch soon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61582
--- Comment #8 from Maksymilian Arciemowicz max at cert dot cx ---
(In reply to Tim Shen from comment #7)
(.*{100}{100}{100}) seems to be a stack overflow. It's because regex
executor uses recursion. It could be fixed (not segfault but memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61582
--- Comment #9 from Tim Shen timshen at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Maksymilian Arciemowicz from comment #8)
(In reply to Tim Shen from comment #7)
(.*{100}{100}{100}) seems to be a stack overflow. It's because regex
executor uses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61616
Bug ID: 61616
Summary: Internal compiler error during reload in gcc-4.7.4
configured as a cross-compiler for a mips target
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.4
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60947
--- Comment #16 from Mikael Pettersson mikpelinux at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to amker from comment #15)
Well, only thing suspicious that I can see, the memset function is a special
implementation and not from C standard library. Basically
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61604
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61607
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jun 26 07:44:10 2014
New Revision: 212011
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212011root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-06-26 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61616
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpelinux at gmail dot com ---
Upstream support for gcc-4.7 has just ended. Please try gcc-4.8.3 or gcc-4.9.0
instead and report whether they work or not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61391
--- Comment #4 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com ---
It turned out that wrong PR number was used in ChangeLog. In fact this bug was
fixed:
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211263root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61582
--- Comment #10 from Maksymilian Arciemowicz max at cert dot cx ---
There is also one other alternative like this
http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/lib/libc/regex/regcomp.c.diff?r1=1.29r2=1.30f=h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61576
Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61614
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
What do you mean by sometime after? Is that commit or something else, later?
In case we should bisect.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61614
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60947
--- Comment #17 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #16)
(In reply to amker from comment #15)
Well, only thing suspicious that I can see, the memset function is a special
implementation and not from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58051
piotr5 at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||piotr5 at netscape dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61616
--- Comment #2 from niva at niisi dot msk.ru ---
I've checked that gcc-4.8.1 works OK.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56193
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It will be ready when it's ready - there are bigger issues that are higher
priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56193
--- Comment #10 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
Yes, sure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61617
Bug ID: 61617
Summary: add boost::coroutine
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58051
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60947
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61617
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to piotr5 from comment #0)
this has been suggested for addition in the next standard.
So have lots of other things, many of them contradictory.
We've got plenty of work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61614
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58051
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I wonder if it's this simple:
--- a/gcc/cp/typeck.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/typeck.c
@@ -8618,8 +8618,6 @@ check_return_expr (tree retval, bool *no_warning)
|| TREE_CODE (retval)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56858
--- Comment #14 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #12)
Steven, is it possible to emit NOTE_INSN_EH_REGION_END in such way that it
would not split the call and its NOTE_INSN_CALL_ARG_LOCATION?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61507
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56858
--- Comment #15 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 33009
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33009action=edit
Updated patch that introduces trap_shadows pass after eh_ranges
Updated patch due to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60723
--- Comment #12 from Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33010
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33010action=edit
A patch candidate that I am currently testing
This the patch I am running through
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39270
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61360
GGanesh Ganesh.Gopalasubramanian at amd dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58972
--- Comment #4 from Akim Demaille akim.demaille at gmail dot com ---
Could someone confirm this bug? The 4.9 I have does not ICEs and still refuses
both sources.
akim@erebus /tmp $ g++-mp-4.9 --version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61607
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jun 26 11:29:34 2014
New Revision: 212026
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212026root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-06-26 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61616
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61614
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |4.9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61613
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61617
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61610
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58972
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Seems to be fixed on trunk, probably by Ville's fix for protected members.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56974
--- Comment #3 from Mark Wielaard mark at gcc dot gnu.org ---
There is DWARFv5 proposal for this now:
http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=131105.1
This adds DW_AT_reference[_qualifier] and DW_AT_rvalue_reference[_qualifier] as
attributes to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58972
--- Comment #6 from Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
Seems to be fixed on trunk, probably by Ville's fix for protected members.
Yes, that fix is for 59483, I didn't wish to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61607
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The bogus loop cancelling is fixed as well as the equivalence recording. Still
DOM does
Registering jump thread: (3, 4) incoming edge; (4, 5) joiner; (5, 6)
normal;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58972
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com ---
(In reply to Ville Voutilainen from comment #6)
Makes sense to me, I'll do that for the local-class example
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60898
Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61618
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61618
Bug ID: 61618
Summary: [4.10 Regression]: ICE in expand_vec_perm_pblendv, at
config/i386/i386.c with -mavx
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60898
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #5)
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #4)
After providing all the missing 'USE' items:
Where did you get them?
Dear Jerry,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61420
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61618
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Testcase (compile with -O2 -mavx):
--cut here--
typedef float V __attribute__ ((vector_size (32)));
typedef unsigned int VI __attribute__ ((vector_size (32)));
extern V a, b, c, d;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61433
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61459
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61488
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61499
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61500
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61515
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61539
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61542
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.4 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61557
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61566
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61614
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61575
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60718
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60851
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60854
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60871
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60929
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60990
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61106
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61144
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61160
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39270
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61619
Bug ID: 61619
Summary: Benefits from -ftree-vectorize lost easily when
changing unrelated code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61144
--- Comment #22 from Rich Felker bugdal at aerifal dot cx ---
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61618
Stupachenko Evgeny evstupac at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||evstupac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61619
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61619
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
Unfortunately the inits look like
[/usr/include/c++/4.9/bits/stl_algobase.h : 378:6] MEM[(char *
{ref-all})S] = MEM[(char *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61619
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59611
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60249
--- Comment #3 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
On 06/25/2014 01:45 PM, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60249
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61620
Bug ID: 61620
Summary: FAIL: go.test/test/fixedbugs/bug242.go execution, -O2
-g
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55136
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Closely related to PR39270.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61621
Bug ID: 61621
Summary: Normal enum switch slower than test case.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61503
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: glisse
Date: Thu Jun 26 15:27:52 2014
New Revision: 212036
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212036root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-06-26 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56633
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
This is fixed in mainline, I'm adding the testcase and closing the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61503
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56633
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Jun 26 15:34:59 2014
New Revision: 212037
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212037root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-06-26 Paolo Carlini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56633
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
1 - 100 of 233 matches
Mail list logo
