https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63152
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63152
Bug ID: 63152
Summary: needless initialization of local pointer arrays.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57305
--- Comment #17 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Sep 3 06:41:37 2014
New Revision: 214843
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214843&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Missed that file in r213079 of 2014-07-26
2014-09-03 Tobias Burnus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62663
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab ---
Then this is most likely a linker bug, not setting up the GOT correctly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61888
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Sep 3 06:41:37 2014
New Revision: 214843
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214843&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Missed that file in r213079 of 2014-07-26
2014-09-03 Tobias Burnus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61881
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Sep 3 06:41:37 2014
New Revision: 214843
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214843&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Missed that file in r213079 of 2014-07-26
2014-09-03 Tobias Burnus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61848
--- Comment #8 from Andrey Ryabinin ---
Hi, may I ask what's the status of this?
Besides of section mismatches in linux kernel it also breaks kernel's modules.
Variable __this_module doesn't get into section ".gnu.linkonce.this_module",
therefor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55409
--- Comment #7 from Freddie Chopin ---
Great (; Do you have some timeline? I'm not trying to rush you - I'm just
working on a project in which this feature would be beneficial, so I'm
wondering whether I should wait a bit (this particular require
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59535
Zhenqiang Chen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhenqiang.chen at arm dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62308
Yvan Roux changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55409
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'm working on it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63151
Bug ID: 63151
Summary: Accessibility error when brace-constructing base class
with protected defaulted constructor and member
variable
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63150
Bug ID: 63150
Summary: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/pr53199.c
scan-assembler-times *
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63149
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppluzhnikov at google dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63149
Richard Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|can't initialize|wrong auto deduction from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63149
Bug ID: 63149
Summary: can't initialize std::vector from auto-deduced type
'const std::initializer_list &'
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31176
Richard Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richard-gccbugzilla@metafoo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61981
Bountysource changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||community at bountysource dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63148
Bug ID: 63148
Summary: r187042 causes auto-vectorization failure for X86 for
-m32.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62663
--- Comment #3 from angelo ---
This is probably a non-bug.
I was confused last night, you are right,
move.l square_test@GOT(%a5),%a0
jsr (%a0)
Is generated and is correct (move.l, instruction set is the same of m68k).
But thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62261
Kazumoto Kojima changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62111
Kazumoto Kojima changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62261
--- Comment #2 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Tue Sep 2 22:32:29 2014
New Revision: 214833
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214833&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/62261
* config/sh/sh.md (ashlsi3): Handle ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62111
--- Comment #18 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Tue Sep 2 22:28:29 2014
New Revision: 214832
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214832&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/62111
* config/sh/predicates.md (general_extend_ope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224
--- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Chris Clayton from comment #9)
> That seems odd to me, although I'm happy to be told I'm wrong. I base this
> on the fact that reverting the code change from r214208 permits a successful
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224
--- Comment #9 from Chris Clayton ---
That seems odd to me, although I'm happy to be told I'm wrong. I base this on
the fact that reverting the code change from r214208 permits a successful
build. MoreOver, in both the failed and sucessful builds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63147
Bug ID: 63147
Summary: Cilk Plus in GCC 4.9 is missing metadata support
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
I don't think this is a compiler bug.
cppmodelmanager.o is simply missing in the object file list of the
libCppEditor.so link command.
And the undefined symbol from cppcodemodelinspectordialog.ii is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62296
--- Comment #3 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #2)
> On x86_64-apple-darwin13.3, for the test in comment 1 I get
>
>0 0 ''
> sh: /bin/false: No such file or directory
> 127
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55409
Freddie Chopin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||freddie_chopin at op dot pl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224
--- Comment #7 from Chris Clayton ---
Created attachment 33439
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33439&action=edit
Pre-processed cppcodemodelinspectordialog
cppcodemodelinspectordialog.ii compressed with xz.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62306
--- Comment #7 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
(In reply to Rafael Avila de Espindola from comment #6)
> OK, so should we declare r206182 an "unintentional bug fix" and mark this
> bug wontfix?
>
One thing to keep in mind. If r206182 was the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62174
--- Comment #3 from Fritz Reese ---
> Patches should go to the gcc-patches at gcc.gnu.org mailing list (and in
> case of Fortran FE patches also CC fortran at gcc.gnu.org ml). That is
> where patch review happens.
Sorry - submitted to the maili
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
I don't see cppmodelmanager in that link command, so I'm guessing ensureUpdated
is hidden in a different .so? Certainly compiling the preprocessed file you
attached provides a definition of the symbol. Can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63140
--- Comment #2 from Ralf Hoffmann ---
Small update: The working 32 bit target was gcc 4.7, so it's not related to
this bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63145
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62040
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||christophe.lyon at st dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62275
--- Comment #5 from Joshua Conner ---
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63145
--- Comment #1 from christophe.lyon at st dot com ---
Created attachment 33438
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33438&action=edit
vcombine.c testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63145
Bug ID: 63145
Summary: [AArch64] ICE with vcombine_u64 at -O2 -g
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62015
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62306
--- Comment #6 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
OK, so should we declare r206182 an "unintentional bug fix" and mark this bug
wontfix?
To be clear, the ABI then is
For any class an implementation has the option of using one comdat per
constru
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63142
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Try:
g++ -o fib -fcilkplus -lcilkrts fib.cpp
instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63142
Bug ID: 63142
Summary: gcc-cilk can not spawn a function template
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62270
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62270
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Sep 2 16:08:05 2014
New Revision: 214827
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214827&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/62270
* interface.c (compare_parameter): Fix conditi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62275
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62275
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Sep 2 16:00:01 2014
New Revision: 214826
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214826&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[2/2] Vectorise lroundf, lfloorf, lceilf using the new ARM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62275
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Sep 2 15:57:56 2014
New Revision: 214825
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214825&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM][1/2] Implement lceil, lfloor, lround optabs with new
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63140
--- Comment #1 from Ralf Hoffmann ---
Created attachment 33436
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33436&action=edit
(gzipped) preprocessed input file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63140
Bug ID: 63140
Summary: wrong code generation probably due to optimization
problem
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61659
--- Comment #28 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #27)
> Possible fix:
Applied to trunk, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62306
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
You could e.g. implement the dtors as:
_Z...D0...:
set some hard reg to 0
tail call some function
_Z...D1...:
set some hard reg to 1
tail call some function
_Z...D2...:
set some hard reg to 2
tail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #38 from Vidya Praveen ---
Until we fix this issue, could we have workaround posted by Martin Jambor
(comment #29) applied again on 4.9 and trunk? This issue is not seen on 4.8
releases because of the workaround. Having the workaround
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62308
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62306
--- Comment #4 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
So it looks like the reason was
My thinking was that the ABI change should also support implementations
that implement D0 as another entry point into the destructor
jason: leav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62662
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is perhaps where we started to have %r11 clobbered in the routine
(therefore pro_and_epilogue wanted to save %r11-%r15), and all the %r11 uses
later disappear because of later passes (I think cprop_hardr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62308
--- Comment #2 from yml ---
But with the option of -mlittle-endian ,it would not have this error. Do it
prove that the backend support zero-length arrays passed by value ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62662
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63139
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62306
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't remember, but IRC log does something:
IRC #gcc on oftc Dec 1 2009
jason: so, I have a patch to handle the implicit cdtors in extern
template class by exporting the cdtors at the explicit instantiati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63139
Bug ID: 63139
Summary: Class-scope typedef overwrites typedef of previously
defined class
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63138
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|boots
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63138
Bug ID: 63138
Summary: Gentleman!!*Watch NEW ZEALAND vs USA Live Streaming
Online
Product: gcc
Version: new-ra
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63136
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|crypto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63137
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|crypto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63135
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.3, 5.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63135
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||s390x-ibm-linux
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63135
Bug ID: 63135
Summary: [4.9 regression] Infinite loop in var-tracking
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62291
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, the testcase is absymally slow in compiling even with -O1 if you enable
glibc memory checking with both(!) MALLOC_CHECK_=3 and MALLOC_PERTURB_=69
I have no idea why... (constant overhead seems to be on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61986
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63117
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|rtl-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63084
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|rtl-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62940
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63052
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|rtl-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63011
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|rtl-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63092
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|rtl-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #17)
> Created attachment 33434 [details]
> bb-slp-26.c.120t.slp1 dump
For this we see
/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-26.c:19:14: note:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #16)
> Created attachment 33433 [details]
> bb-slp-11.c.126t.slp2 dump
/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-11.c:19:8: note:
not vectorized: re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62296
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62663
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson ---
Without -msep-data gcc outputs
jsr square_test
With -msep-data gcc outputs
move.l square_test@GOT(%a5),%a0
jsr (%a0)
Is that move.l unavailable on the mcf5307? (I'm familiar w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62282
--- Comment #11 from Dmitry Petrov ---
>Which of the above mentioned semantics you want for your inlines?
Semantics that would allow me get code that links even with -O0 without need to
dublicate function body.
I can understand how this code can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62174
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63131
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62246
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62278
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62536
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63129
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63130
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63128
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
--- Comment #18 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
>> > So ... can you test enabling vect64 for sparc?
>>
>> While it works for the test at hand, the two other tests using vect64
>> (bb-slp-11.c and bb-slp-26.c) now FAIL:
>>
>> FAIL: g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
--- Comment #17 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 33434
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33434&action=edit
bb-slp-26.c.120t.slp1 dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
--- Comment #16 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 33433
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33433&action=edit
bb-slp-11.c.126t.slp2 dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62282
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62943
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63106
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|rtl-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63072
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|rtl-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63040
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|rtl-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63060
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|rtl-optimi
1 - 100 of 528 matches
Mail list logo