https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61035
Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61165
Bug ID: 61165
Summary: unfriendly diagnostic from macro expansion
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61165
--- Comment #1 from Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Also, note what happens if one changes the body of the function:
extern void *allocate (int);
#define my_alloc(X) allocate (X)
int *alloc_int(void)
{
return my_alloc(sizeof (int));
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60858
--- Comment #2 from SwissP swissp2013 at gmail dot com ---
Andrew,
Also patches go to gcc-patches@ and should include a testcase or two.
Not familiar with the bugzilla interface I could
not find where gcc-patches@ resides on the site.
Can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61162
--- Comment #4 from Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note that it is also wrong in the initializer case.
enum e f(void)
{
enum e result = 0;
return result;
}
barimba. gcc --syntax-only -Wc++-compat r.c
r.c: In function ‘f’:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61162
--- Comment #5 from Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
But, curiously, in this case it points to the RHS of the assignment
(I still tend to think the = is the best location):
extern void *alloc (void);
int *f (void) {
int *r = alloc ();
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61160
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61166
Bug ID: 61166
Summary: overflow when parse number in std::duration operator
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61162
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #4)
Note that it is also wrong in the initializer case.
Right, my patch fixes this too.
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #5)
But,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61162
--- Comment #7 from Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #6)
I'd prefer the RHS location here; it's the RHS that's being converted.
I was hoping to automate some conversion from C to C++ using
the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60787
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
r172430 exposed it, r190284 made it latent again. The testcase also fails with
early inlining disabled.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60973
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60382
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
hmm, interesting - I can't reproduce the failure but will backport anyway (it's
a safe fix).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10437
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Smith from comment #11)
I disagree. The failure is not in the immediate context of the substitution,
so this is a hard error. GCC seems to be doing the right
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61060
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 13 08:28:53 2014
New Revision: 210352
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210352root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/61060
* config/i386/i386.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61060
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 13 08:31:29 2014
New Revision: 210353
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210353root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/61060
* config/i386/i386.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61167
Bug ID: 61167
Summary: ::std::map::operator[]() throws arithmetic exception
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61144
--- Comment #16 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Rich Felker from comment #15)
Can you clarify? As far as I can tell, the other bug is a missed
optimization and this is an overly-aggressive, incorrect optimization.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58094
Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61075
--- Comment #4 from Denes Matetelki denes.matetelki at gmail dot com ---
Thank you for the reply, Jonathan.
I understand your reasoning and not sure if my desires has much impact in the
future of GCC.
I'm suprised that the same source code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61060
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61143
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61167
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58094
--- Comment #9 from Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org ---
x86_64-linux-gnu and i586-linux-gnu too
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61075
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Denes Matetelki from comment #4)
I'm suprised that the same source code cannot be compiled with parallel
mode. It would be ugly to branch with #ifdef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61167
--- Comment #2 from hrehf...@uni-koblenz.de ---
Thanks! :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61143
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61165
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61162
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61165
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #0)
I find this a bit strange. The actual warning: line points to
the #define -- but here I think I would have expected this to
point
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61165
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #3)
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #0)
I find this a bit strange. The actual warning: line points to
the #define --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61168
Bug ID: 61168
Summary: Assembler options (-Wa,*) are not propagated when
using -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61138
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61137
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=61139
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61139
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|missed fma optimization |missed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61075
Denes Matetelki denes.matetelki at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61075
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |WONTFIX
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61166
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|kan.liu.229 at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12944
Bug 12944 depends on bug 10437, which changed state.
Bug 10437 Summary: using namespace at global scope creates incorrect code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10437
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10437
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60973
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 13 11:04:44 2014
New Revision: 210364
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210364root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-05-13 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60973
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 13 11:06:00 2014
New Revision: 210365
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210365root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-05-13 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60973
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61141
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=60497
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue May 13 11:18:01 2014
New Revision: 210366
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210366root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/60497
* include/std/tuple (get,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61144
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61154
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=61134
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61129
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
There was a recent proof-of-concept patch on the mailinglist to implement that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61169
Bug ID: 61169
Summary: [4.6,4.7,4.8,4.9] unnecessarily honors bracket in
mathematical statements
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61170
Bug ID: 61170
Summary: FAIL: libgomp.fortran/declare-simd-[12].f90 on darwin
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61171
Bug ID: 61171
Summary: vectorization fails for a reduction in presence of
subtraction
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61172
Bug ID: 61172
Summary: C++11: ICE with invalid call to template class
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61173
Bug ID: 61173
Summary: [4.9/4.10 Regression] Erroneous end of file with
internal read
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61172
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Schlüter tobi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(I see that it mentions macports. To avoid all confusion: I also see this ICE
it with unmodified gcc-4.7.2 on Linux.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61172
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57086
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tobi at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61169
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61174
Bug ID: 61174
Summary: [4.9 Regression] Bad resolving of specialized template
with const-qualified member function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61174
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9 Regression] Bad|Bad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61175
Bug ID: 61175
Summary: failing vectorization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61172
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Schlüter tobi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks! I wonder which option I missed when I was searching for duplicates :(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60382
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 13 13:21:47 2014
New Revision: 210371
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210371root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-05-13 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61173
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61169
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61166
--- Comment #2 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32789
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32789action=edit
Patch to parse_nmber to make it unsigned long long all over.
Works on x86_64-linux.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61166
--- Comment #3 from Kan Liu kan.liu.229 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to emsr from comment #2)
Created attachment 32789 [details]
Patch to parse_nmber to make it unsigned long long all over.
Works on x86_64-linux.
Yeah, it works. Thank
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61166
--- Comment #4 from Kan Liu kan.liu.229 at gmail dot com ---
btw, is it really necessary to use functionality in parse_number.h to parse
manually? What *parse_number* has done is no more than the general
*operator(unsigned long long)*, and it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60981
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #3 from Tony Theodore tony.theodore at gmail dot com ---
I'm building a cross compiler with:
Host: x86_64-apple-darwin13.1.0
Targets:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60981
--- Comment #5 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32790
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32790action=edit
proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61174
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
By the way, this does *not* compile with 4.8, neither with 4.7, ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61176
Bug ID: 61176
Summary: [4.9/4.10 Regression] plugin builds including gimple.h
not building
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57086
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60081
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61173
Keith Refson krefson at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krefson at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61173
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61174
--- Comment #3 from alkino nco...@aldebaran-robotics.com ---
It works with ideone (gcc-4.8.1) https://ideone.com/t8Jww2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60928
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61174
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47054
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60497
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61156
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61174
--- Comment #5 from alkino nco...@aldebaran-robotics.com ---
Can you tell me why, please?
Thanks to look at it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61176
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.1
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61174
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Instead of starting from scratch, why don't you use
std::is_member_function_pointer? It handles correctly all sorts of member
functions. Alternately, study the implementation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61143
--- Comment #9 from Felix Fontein felix at fontein dot de ---
Another workaround is to use reserve(), as in:
std::unordered_mapint, int b = std::move(a);
a.reserve(1); // any number 0 will do
a.emplace(1, 1);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60928
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54310
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Current SolarisStudio also accepts it. I guess I'm going to add the testcase
and close the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61177
Bug ID: 61177
Summary: armv6zk: gcc
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60981
--- Comment #6 from Tony Theodore tony.theodore at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #4)
--- Comment #3 from Tony Theodore tony.theodore at gmail dot com ---
I'm building a cross compiler with:
It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61165
Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61177
Rion rion4ik at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rion4ik at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61177
--- Comment #2 from Rion rion4ik at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 32791
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32791action=edit
test.c
example code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61162
--- Comment #9 from Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #8)
If you point to '=', then the macro expansion note will not appear in your
other example (PR61165).
Yeah, I still think the '=' is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61178
Bug ID: 61178
Summary: expansion pattern '#'nontype_argument_pack' not
supported by dump_expr#
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54890
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60628
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue May 13 16:05:07 2014
New Revision: 210382
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210382root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/60628
* decl.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60367
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue May 13 16:05:01 2014
New Revision: 210381
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210381root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/60367
* call.c
1 - 100 of 168 matches
Mail list logo