http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61108
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61100
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||y.gribov at samsung dot com
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61108
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The tree level looks fine at least to me:
vect_val_8.15_127 = MEM[(const uint32_t *)vectp_vals.14_85];
vect_patt_47.16_128 = WIDEN_MULT_EVEN_EXPR ;
vect_patt_47.16_129 = WIDEN_MULT_ODD_EXPR ;
vect__11.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61108
Bug ID: 61108
Summary: gcc 4.8.2 generates incorrect integer arithmetic at O3
(ok at O2)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52539
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org |
--- Comment #26 from Jerry DeLisl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59952
--- Comment #12 from Thiago Macieira ---
GCC 4.9.0 got released with -march=haswell still enabling RTM and HLE, even
though there are Haswell parts without TSX.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61095
--- Comment #10 from Kostya Serebryany ---
also, just curious: are such fixes supposed to be accompanied with regression
tests?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61095
--- Comment #9 from Kostya Serebryany ---
I confirm that the minimized reproducer is fixed, but tsan is still crashing on
the same CHECK:
../gcc-inst/bin/g++ -g -fsanitize=thread -fPIE -pie -static-libtsan
simple_race.cc && ./a.out
FATAL: Threa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52539
--- Comment #25 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I have managed to get to a machine on the gcc compile farm to do some further
debugging. (gcc110)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60984
--- Comment #17 from David Edelsohn ---
(gdb) print node->name()
$37 = 0x303f2768 "void __builtin_unreachable()"
(gdb) print *edge
$32 = {count = 0, caller = 0x70460a80, callee = 0x700099c0, prev_caller = 0x0,
next_caller = 0x0, prev_callee = 0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61032
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60737
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60737
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Thu May 8 02:05:19 2014
New Revision: 210201
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210201&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/60737
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (expand_block_move): Allow 64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60984
--- Comment #16 from David Edelsohn ---
3153 gcc_checking_assert (true_predicate_p
(&(*info->entry)[0].predicate));
(gdb) print info
$1 = (inline_summary *) 0x704970f8
(gdb) print info->entry
$2 = (vec *) 0x0
(gdb) print *info
$3 = {estimated
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31778
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59584
--- Comment #16 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #15)
> Thus, I'm fine with closing this for the regressions but not exactly for the
> issue in comment #5 for which the bug was opened;
FWIW, I actually mean
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31778
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57062
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39246
--- Comment #37 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jye2
Date: Thu May 8 01:23:01 2014
New Revision: 210200
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210200&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-07 Thomas Preud'homme
PR middle-end/39246
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39246
--- Comment #36 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jye2
Date: Thu May 8 01:20:17 2014
New Revision: 210199
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210199&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-07 Thomas Preud'homme
PR middle-end/39246
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39246
--- Comment #35 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jye2
Date: Thu May 8 01:19:11 2014
New Revision: 210198
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210198&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-07 Thomas Preud'homme
PR middle-end/39246
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60984
--- Comment #15 from David Edelsohn ---
#0 _Z11fancy_abortPKciS0_ (
file=0x11dc62b8
"/home/dje/src/gcc/gcc/vec.h", line=735, function=0x11dc62e0
"operator[]")
at /home/dje/src/gcc/gcc/diagnostic.c:1190
#1 0x100f8fd0 in _ZN3vecI15size_t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61091
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61101
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Maxime Boissonneault from comment #13)
> I see that.
>
> Wasn't the GCC 4.8.1 compiler supposed to already know to look in the folder
> /software6/compilers/gcc/4.8.1/include/c++/4.8.1/x86_64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61081
--- Comment #4 from Peter Eisentraut ---
Not really, because this code is in header files not under my control, and
those header files should presumably work with a variety of C compilers and
shouldn't need to rely on GCC extensions.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61101
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Maxime Boissonneault from comment #5)
> Basically, we started with the system GCC. We compiled GCC, GMP, MPFR,
> MPC_V, with that system GCC. Then, we uninstalled the system GCC and its
> libst
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61084
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
[...]
>> the gnat.dg/outer_agg_bitfield_constructor.adb problem.
>
> In a build tree from 10 days ago, compi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61101
--- Comment #16 from Maxime Boissonneault ---
On a related not, is there a way to control default paths that GCC will always
look into for libraries and/or headers ? We install things in non-standard
locations (so that we can have multiple version
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61101
--- Comment #15 from Maxime Boissonneault ---
Thanks for the advices. I will try to sort this out tomorrow. The reason we
enable all languages and why we build from source is to control all
dependencies and are able to provide multiple versions of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61101
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini ---
You can experiment at will, but remember that on any sane Linux system nothing
similar is necessary, a tarball or a checkout can be built as is and all the
C99 facilities are normally enabled. Something I wou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61101
--- Comment #13 from Maxime Boissonneault ---
I see that.
Wasn't the GCC 4.8.1 compiler supposed to already know to look in the folder
/software6/compilers/gcc/4.8.1/include/c++/4.8.1/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/
to find bits/c++config.h ?
Do I ne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61101
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini ---
In your log there are a lot of errors: "fatal error: bits/c++config.h: No such
file or directory" which are definitely unexpected and bad.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61101
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini ---
But that is what matters, because the stdio functions in the header are
protected by the global C99 macro, not by something more fine grained. In any
case, on any normal Linux system the final outcome must be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61101
--- Comment #10 from Maxime Boissonneault ---
Created attachment 32759
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32759&action=edit
stage1-libstdc++-v3-config.log
Here is there libstdc++-v3 config.log file.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61101
--- Comment #9 from Maxime Boissonneault ---
I attached the config.log, configure.log and make.log. The only one containing
C99 is the make.log.
The only test that says no is
checking for fully enabled ISO C99 support... no
The rest are yesses
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61101
--- Comment #8 from Maxime Boissonneault ---
Created attachment 32758
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32758&action=edit
config.log, configure.log, make.log
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61107
Bug ID: 61107
Summary: [4.8/4.9/4.10] stl_algo.h :
std::__inplace_stable_partition() doesn't process the
whole data range
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61101
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini ---
I would suggest having a look to the config.log in the libstdc++-v3 build
directory and see which and how a C99 test is failing.
By the way (Jon) in mine I see a warning:
conftest.cpp: In function 'int main(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61101
--- Comment #6 from Maxime Boissonneault ---
Here is our complete installation document :
https://docs.google.com/a/calculquebec.ca/document/d/1hcddCXGnm6OgTwRxRDU2akb-AxKx2aursppLp2JPwWo/edit
It went :
- System GCC compiled GCC 4.8.1
system GCC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61106
Bug ID: 61106
Summary: [4.8/4.9/4.10 Regression] impliedness of
-Wunused-parameter depends on -W option ordering
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61101
--- Comment #5 from Maxime Boissonneault ---
Any pointer on what could be wrong ?
Maybe a clue is that we compiled GCC not with the system GCC, but with another
GCC ?
Basically, we started with the system GCC. We compiled GCC, GMP, MPFR, MPC_V,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61101
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Maxime Boissonneault from comment #2)
> /* #undef _GLIBCXX_USE_C99 */
Something is wrong with your GCC build.
I've just installed it on CentOS 6.5 and it works fine.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61101
--- Comment #3 from Maxime Boissonneault ---
Sorry, I missed the first question. The value of $FLAGS was
FLAGS="-O2 -march=native -pipe -Wall"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61105
Bug ID: 61105
Summary: [constexpr] accepts-invalid with new-expression in
constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61104
Bug ID: 61104
Summary: Solaris configured without --with-system-zlib fails
due to extra folder depth of multi-lib
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61092
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 32757
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32757&action=edit
Proposed patch that implements TARGET_GIMPLE_FOLD_BUILTIN for alpha
I am testing the attached patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61101
--- Comment #2 from Maxime Boissonneault ---
[mboisson@colosse3 ~]$ grep USE_C99
/software6/compilers/gcc/4.8.2/include/c++/4.8.2/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bits/c++config.h
/* #undef _GLIBCXX_USE_C99 */
/* #undef _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_COMPLEX */
/* #und
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61101
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
What was the value of $FLAGS when GCC was built?
Something is preventing the library from using C99 functions.
What is the output of running this?
grep USE_C99
/software6/compilers/gcc/4.8.2/include/c++/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61103
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61103
Bug ID: 61103
Summary: False-positive, template-independent name taken as
dependent name
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61102
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57564
ncahill_alt at yahoo dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59481
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51501
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60884
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Wed May 7 20:08:23 2014
New Revision: 210187
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210187&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/60884
* config/sh/sh-mem.cc (sh_expand_strlen): Use lo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61082
--- Comment #15 from David Greene ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14)
> I think GCC is correct.
I agree. Thanks for working through the explanation with me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59676
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59686
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61083
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61083
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed May 7 19:48:53 2014
New Revision: 210186
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210186&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-05-07 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/61083
* pt.c (con
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60514
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61102
Bug ID: 61102
Summary: ld --plugin causes binutils gold incremental_test to
fail
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61083
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed May 7 19:31:24 2014
New Revision: 210184
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210184&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-05-07 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/61083
* pt.c (con
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61026
--- Comment #10 from Oleg Endo ---
Sorry for the trouble, but Joseph has a point here ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg00414.html
Could you guys please try moving the problematic header includes in sh.c below
the #include "config.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61101
Bug ID: 61101
Summary: snprintf not part of std
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30578
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57272
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
>From Bug 21771: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2005-05/msg00294.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57272
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21771
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61082
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to David Greene from comment #13)
> I see that 3.2.3 4 (b) is talking about considering adjacent fields in an
> eightbyte. Is the intent to classify each eightbyte in an aggregate and
> then consider eac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60973
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Index: gcc/tree-inline.c
I have checked this patch on my target, where it fixes the runtime problem. The
optimized tree dump results in:
int main(int, char**) (i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61082
--- Comment #13 from David Greene ---
I see that 3.2.3 4 (b) is talking about considering adjacent fields in an
eightbyte. Is the intent to classify each eightbyte in an aggregate and then
consider each eightbyte separately for assigning argument
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61095
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Wed May 7 18:00:59 2014
New Revision: 210181
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210181&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR tree-optimization/61095
* tree-ssanames.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61082
--- Comment #12 from David Greene ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11)
> That is correct and Y is classified as INTEGER with 2 fields:
> NO_CLASS, INTEGER. The question is how NO_CLASS should be handled.
Since the "Returning of Values" se
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61099
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61014
Tom Tromey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61082
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to David Greene from comment #10)
>
> So Y should be classified as INTEGER and returned in (RAX, RDX).
That is correct and Y is classified as INTEGER with 2 fields:
NO_CLASS, INTEGER. The question is h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61009
davidxl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xinliangli at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38265
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The C++11 standard clarifies that this is intended to work. The range
constructors require the type to be EmplaceConstructible into the container
from the iterator's value_type, which means calling
allocato
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61082
--- Comment #10 from David Greene ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> Y is returned as {NO_CLASS, INTEGER} in register. psABI doesn't
> explicitly say how NO_CLASS should be handled in this case. GCC
> simply skips NO_CLASS when assigning
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61082
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
Y is returned as {NO_CLASS, INTEGER} in register. psABI doesn't
explicitly say how NO_CLASS should be handled in this case. GCC
simply skips NO_CLASS when assigning it to a register.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61100
Bug ID: 61100
Summary: asan/tsan should have the sanitizer includes
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sani
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61099
--- Comment #3 from Barry McInnes ---
This gives the same errors within MacOS 10.8 and 10.9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52917
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61083
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61099
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
This sounds like a bug in Apple's assembler.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61095
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61089
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13981
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrismonkie at gmail dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58809
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59011
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59297
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59014
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59101
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58564
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58365
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58325
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58277
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58209
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 200 matches
Mail list logo
