http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56895
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56883
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-10
06:53:47 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 10 06:35:48 2013
New Revision: 197661
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=197661&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2013-0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56898
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak 2013-04-10 06:43:52
UTC ---
Please post patches to gcc-patches mailing list, as described in [1].
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56897
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak 2013-04-10 06:43:14
UTC ---
> Attached the diff against trunk.
Please post patches to gcc-patches mailing list, as described in [1].
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56898
--- Comment #1 from Martynas Venckus 2013-04-10
03:57:00 UTC ---
Created attachment 29846
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29846
gcc-ssp-alpha.diff
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56898
Bug #: 56898
Summary: stack smashing protector for alpha
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56897
--- Comment #1 from Martynas Venckus 2013-04-10
03:55:11 UTC ---
Created attachment 29845
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29845
gcc-unalign-alpha.diff
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56897
Bug #: 56897
Summary: unaligned memory access on alpha
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34653
--- Comment #9 from Tony Poppleton 2013-04-10
02:01:27 UTC ---
GCC 4.8.0 with -O2 produces something similar to the original, so the
regression noted in comment #7 and comment #8 is now resolved.
movzbl (%rdi), %eax
shr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47521
--- Comment #7 from Tony Poppleton 2013-04-10
01:51:36 UTC ---
This appears to be fixed with GCC 4.8.0 and flag -O2. The asm code produced is
now exactly as Jeff said in comment #3:
.file "test.c"
.text
.p2al
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47477
--- Comment #13 from Tony Poppleton
2013-04-10 01:44:18 UTC ---
The test case appears to be fixed in GCC 4.8.0, compiling with just -S and -O3,
the asm
output is now a much simpler:
.file "test.c"
.text
.p2al
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35926
--- Comment #8 from Tony Poppleton 2013-04-10
01:42:20 UTC ---
This appears to be fixed in GCC 4.8.0, compiling with just -S and -O3, the asm
output is now a much simpler:
.file "test.c"
.text
.p2align 4,,15
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54216
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54216
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56388
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56791
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin 2013-04-09
23:17:04 UTC ---
Introduced in r195702. Guess I didn't do enough testing of PA 1.1.
Looks like we need to ban symbolic destinations to work around this
bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37132
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2013-04-09
23:08:35 UTC ---
For gdb-support, see http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15353
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56835
--- Comment #5 from Jack Howarth 2013-04-09
22:57:00 UTC ---
This has been filed with MacPorts as https://trac.macports.org/ticket/38732
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56835
--- Comment #4 from Jack Howarth 2013-04-09
22:55:27 UTC ---
IMHO, this should be closed as invalid since MacPorts is applying unnecessary
and invalid patches to gcc 4.8.0.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55487
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37132
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23055
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56835
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at nitro dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56882
--- Comment #2 from xperience at interia dot pl 2013-04-09 20:03:30 UTC ---
Compiler ICE's during compile phase, without LTO.
Previous versions of GCC ie. 4.7.1 or 4.6.3 doesn't ICE,
and output of
gcc -O3 -mtune=native -march=native -fom
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51424
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Schepler 2013-04-09
19:38:15 UTC ---
The diagnostic is easy in the direct case of delegating to the same
constructor, but difficult in the indirect case of multiple delegating
constructors. (The condition might s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56889
--- Comment #6 from Amali Praveena 2013-04-09
19:23:38 UTC ---
Hi Daniel,
The Stack template is an abstract type, so I don't have to add default
constructor to it, do I? Since the abstract type can't be copied/moved, i'm
explicitly specifying th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56889
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler
2013-04-09 19:13:55 UTC ---
This issue is not the right place for discussing programming idioms, but as a
last comment to the code: Your reference to PL alone does not solve your
programing error: You need to d
++ --disable-bootstrap
--with-gxx-include-dir=/home/ryan/foo/bar/usr/include/4.9.0
--with-sysroot=/home/ryan/foo/bar/
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20130409 (experimental) [trunk revision 197644] (GCC)
## - ##
## Platform. ##
~/gnu/gcc/trunk/tmp$ grep -nr gcc_gxx_include_dir *
gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56889
--- Comment #4 from Amali Praveena 2013-04-09
19:02:32 UTC ---
Hi Jonathan,
The Stack in the example is an abstract type, so I'm explicitly saying
that this abstract type cannot be copied or moved; but the derived class
vector_stack, which
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23055
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52072
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25466
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56895
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill 2013-04-09
18:49:28 UTC ---
OK.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56895
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-09
18:46:16 UTC ---
Created attachment 29844
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29844
gcc49-pr56895.patch
Untested complete patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56895
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-09
18:37:36 UTC ---
Though, there are several other maybe_constant_value calls now in cp/typeck.c,
and only 2 of them are guarded with !processing_template_decl.
So I guess the warn_for_div_by_zero
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56895
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-09
18:36:41 UTC ---
The reason for that is that I don't want errors being printed just when trying
to optimize to see if I should warn or not.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40958
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56895
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2013-04-09
18:33:26 UTC ---
It seems a bit weird not propagating complain..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56895
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-09
18:15:51 UTC ---
So:
@@ -4178,7 +4178,8 @@ cp_build_binary_op (location_t location,
}
else if (code0 == INTEGER_TYPE && code1 == INTEGER_TYPE)
{
- tree const
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16564
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28865
--- Comment #7 from Fredrick 2013-04-09
18:10:34 UTC ---
HJ,
Thanks for pointing the patch.
The patch works. I tested it on x86-64.
Could this patch be integrated into the mainline GCC?
Thanks,
Fredrick
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16564
--- Comment #16 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2013-04-09
18:04:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Manuel, compile_file changed with this commit:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=118362
>
> I seem to remember that anoth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56895
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2013-04-09
18:03:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Introduced by my http://gcc.gnu.org/r195051 , potential_constant_expression
> returns true about it, because fun in a call expr isn't a FUNCTION_DECL.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56895
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56859
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16564
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Car
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25466
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jason at gcc dot gnu.org|
AssignedTo|paolo.carlin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25466
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill 2013-04-09
17:32:49 UTC ---
Mind if I take this one?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15485
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37885
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13452
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||witmer at averagesoftware
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33068
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |sch...@linux-m68k.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52072
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2013-04-09
16:52:07 UTC ---
I suppose PR23055 is another Dup?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56895
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56895
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56890
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|ebot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56890
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56895
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56893
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56895
Bug #: 56895
Summary: ICE: unexpected expression of kind arrow_expr
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56894
--- Comment #1 from Laurent Aflonsi 2013-04-09
15:23:16 UTC ---
Created attachment 29842
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29842
testcase to reproduce
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56894
Bug #: 56894
Summary: performance regression in gcc 4.7.x due to a +=
operation
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48762
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48762
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek 2013-04-09
15:02:01 UTC ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Apr 9 15:01:43 2013
New Revision: 197638
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=197638&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/48762
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56893
Bug #: 56893
Summary: gcc-ar-4.7: Cannot find liblto_plugin.so on Darwin
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: lto
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48762
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek 2013-04-09
14:57:25 UTC ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Apr 9 14:56:59 2013
New Revision: 197637
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=197637&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/48762
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56698
--- Comment #5 from Mike Hommey 2013-04-09
14:54:51 UTC ---
As noted in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=854105#c4, fileIndex
is uint32_t, so 0 - 1 is UINT32_MAX, which makes the error valid. Now the
question is why does it onl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56881
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson 2013-04-09
14:45:33 UTC ---
The test case is incomplete, as it lacks both main() and domalloc(). Please
add those (in a separate file if you like) so that the test case can be
compiled to an executabl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56885
--- Comment #6 from Yuri Rumyantsev 2013-04-09
14:22:28 UTC ---
Forgot to mention that __builtin_memset and function argument are not
interchangeable since both use the same register di.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56881
devspam at moreofthesa dot me.uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||amd64
Known to wo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56866
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56720
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56885
--- Comment #5 from Yuri Rumyantsev 2013-04-09
13:33:53 UTC ---
I did simple investigation and found out that
1. Test is compiled successfully without selective scheduling, i.e. with
'-fschedule-insns' only.
2. The problem is that selecti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56887
--- Comment #3 from fkrogh at mathalacarte dot com 2013-04-09 13:30:45 UTC ---
On 04/09/2013 06:06 AM, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56887
>
> Tobias Burnus changed:
>
> What
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56883
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
Known to fail|4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #7 from Max Reitz 2013-04-09 13:20:06
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2013, xanclic at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
> >
> > --- Comment #5 from Max Reitz 2013-0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de
2013-04-09 13:17:10 UTC ---
On Tue, 9 Apr 2013, xanclic at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
>
> --- Comment #5 from Max Reitz 2013-04-09 13:02:19
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56887
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #5 from Max Reitz 2013-04-09 13:02:19
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Just add -fno-tree-loop-distribute-patterns to the already long list of
> options
> you need for compilation of certain routines in your C library.
Th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56892
--- Comment #1 from Geoff Worboys
2013-04-09 12:35:33 UTC ---
I realised I should add that I put the same code (adjusted for lack of C++11
support) through msvc v17, and can see it optimising the inline calls inside
the library binary.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56838
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeratul976 at hotmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56886
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52072
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56892
Bug #: 56892
Summary: dllexport prevents inline inside dll
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56889
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56793
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luto at mit dot edu
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51348
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56887
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56885
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ysrumyan at gmail dot com
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56854
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34949
--- Comment #33 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko 2013-04-09
10:07:47 UTC ---
*** Bug 56830 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56830
Dmitry G. Dyachenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolutio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56878
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56882
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56886
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson 2013-04-09
09:59:20 UTC ---
Started with Richard Biener's http://gcc.gnu.org/r188261 aka PR53081 fix, which
added or improved memcpy recognition. I'm guess the new code fails to check
for whatever opt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56881
Chung-Ju Wu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jasonwucj at gmail dot com
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56889
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler
2013-04-09 09:36:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
In addition I would like to remark that the precise declaration state of the
inherited initializer-list constructor in vector_stack is unclear, because of
h
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
