https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66214
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
Hmm, today, I see it again. I wonder why it (seemed to) work(ed) yesterday.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66297
Bug ID: 66297
Summary: constexpr non-static member functions of non-literal
types
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66287
--- Comment #1 from Mitsuru Kariya ---
I found several examples that cause the similar error message.
=== sample code 1 ===
constexpr int copy(const int& v)
{
return v;
}
constexpr const int& r = 42;
constexpr const int& c =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66296
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66296
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66296
Bug ID: 66296
Summary: Gcc generated wrong code with uint16_t add/sub even
with no optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: criti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66294
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54351
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #12 from TC --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66295
Bug ID: 66295
Summary: LTO generates incorrect resolver call for function
multiversioning
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66294
Bug ID: 66294
Summary: Nonsensical warning message for address-of static
member function expr through expr.B
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
Kazumoto Kojima changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regression] [SH] |[5/6 Regression] [SH] Wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66258
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Confirmed, happens with grub.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #31 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Tue May 26 22:37:06 2015
New Revision: 223722
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223722&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65979
* config/sh/sh.md (tstsi_t peephole2): Use gen_rtx_SE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #30 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Tue May 26 22:32:11 2015
New Revision: 223721
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223721&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65979
* config/sh/sh.md (tstsi_t peephole2): Use gen_rtx_SE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65839
Doug Evans changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65839
--- Comment #5 from devans at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: devans
Date: Tue May 26 21:28:42 2015
New Revision: 223719
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223719&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/65839
* python/libstdcxx/v6/xmeth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66293
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31573
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sverd.johnsen at googlemail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66293
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Sverd Johnsen from comment #0)
> clang supports -Weverything which simply enables all warnings. gcc should
> introduce an equivalent option.
No it shouldn't.
This is a dup of an existing bug,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66293
Bug ID: 66293
Summary: Support -Weverything to enable all warnings
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: dr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #46 from Frank Ch. Eigler ---
> I can add a workaround in Bugzilla itself, if that helps. Frank?
Please go ahead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66292
--- Comment #4 from Columbo ---
Created attachment 35630
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35630&action=edit
Testcase for 66292
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66292
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66292
--- Comment #2 from Columbo ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> Please provide a preprocessed source file (does not have to be reduced).
The file is larger than 1000kb. It consists of 88000 lines.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66292
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66292
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #45 from Frédéric Buclin ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #44)
> Any update on the timestamp issue? It still happens regularly.
I reported to overseers that the problem was not in Bugzilla, per comment 34,
but I don'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66292
Bug ID: 66292
Summary: ICE in constexpr call evaluation
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46032
--- Comment #16 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> (In reply to vries from comment #11)
> > The ipa-pta solution no longer works. In 4.6, we had:
> > ...
> > # USE = anything
> > # CLB = anything
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63949
vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66049
vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66251
--- Comment #7 from Michael Matz ---
fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66251
--- Comment #6 from Michael Matz ---
Author: matz
Date: Tue May 26 16:00:32 2015
New Revision: 223704
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223704&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/66251
* tree-vect-stmts.c (vect_model_store_c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66049
--- Comment #9 from vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vekumar
Date: Tue May 26 15:32:02 2015
New Revision: 223703
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223703&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-26 Venkataramanan Kumar
PR target/66049
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66142
--- Comment #13 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Original test-case is not vectorized yet with Richard patch for sccvn.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124
--- Comment #13 from Georg Müller ---
This bug is causing dpdk build failures on my fedora 22 machine:
git clone git://dpdk.org/dpdk
cd dpdk
make config T=x86_64-native-linuxapp-gcc
make
[...]
.../dpdk/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c:1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124
--- Comment #14 from Georg Müller ---
sorry, a small typo in the last line of the last message: there was no problem
with fedora 21, not 22...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66281
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66291
Bug ID: 66291
Summary: [OOP] Incorrect compile time warning for final
procedure in gfortran
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66246
kai-bugs at cats dot ms changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i686-w64-mingw32|i686-w64-mingw32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66142
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66283
--- Comment #1 from Gary Funck ---
FYI, this also results in a bootstrap failure for C++ on IA64, when configured
with:
CFLAGS='-g3 -O0' \
CXXFLAGS='-g3 -O0' \
$src/configure \
--prefix=$rls \
--enable-checking \
--enable-languages=c,c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #44 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Any update on the timestamp issue? It still happens regularly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66208
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52144
--- Comment #4 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chrbr
Date: Tue May 26 14:06:17 2015
New Revision: 223699
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223699&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-13 Christian Bruel
PR target/52144
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #37 from Chung-Kil Hur ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #36)
> On Tue, 26 May 2015, gil.hur at sf dot snu.ac.kr wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
> >
> > --- Comment #35 from Chung-Kil Hu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66142
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 26 13:55:40 2015
New Revision: 223697
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223697&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-26 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/66142
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #36 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 26 May 2015, gil.hur at sf dot snu.ac.kr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
>
> --- Comment #35 from Chung-Kil Hur ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66280
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46032
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
and GOMP_task (fn1, data1, fn2, ...) performs:
if (somecond)
{
if (fn2 == 0)
fn1 (data1);
else
{
void *buf = alloca (...); // Takes care also about alignment
fn2 (buf, d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66262
--- Comment #5 from Gianfranco ---
I'm still trying to provide what requested, as you can see there
I'm working right now on it
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=casablanca&suite=experimental
however it is not trivial by me :)
plea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66285
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
I thought that parallelizing vectorized loops is harder (you eventually get
extra prologue and epliogue loops, etc).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66262
Gianfranco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #35 from Chung-Kil Hur ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #34)
> On Sat, 23 May 2015, gil.hur at sf dot snu.ac.kr wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
> >
> > --- Comment #33 from Chung-Kil Hu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46032
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> > > So there's no longer a path in the call graph from main to main._omp_fn.
> > > Perhaps a dummy body for GOMP_parallel could fix that.
> >
> > Hm? The IPA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66261
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Interesting ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66030
--- Comment #2 from Hamza Alloush ---
with gcc 5.1, i also have this bug, whenever i try to cross compile boost with
mingw, as it tries to define codecvt_byname for
${BOOST_DIR}/libs/locale/src/std/codecvt.cpp
##
undefined reference to `std::cod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66262
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64045
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66263
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66288
Bug ID: 66288
Summary: parallelized loop vectorized with runtime alias check
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66181
--- Comment #13 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Tue May 26 13:21:16 2015
New Revision: 223695
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223695&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR ipa/66181
2015-05-26 Ramana Radhakrishnan
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66215
Dominik Vogt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35599|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66264
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64045
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66285
--- Comment #8 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For example par-4.c, if we use the same patch to interchange the passes, we
get:
When not parallelizing, all loops get vectorized:
...
parloops_factor: 0, index_type: int:
vectorized: 1, parallel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66273
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66275
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66285
--- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> I thought that parallelizing vectorized loops is harder (you eventually get
> extra prologue and epliogue loops, etc).
Another example, par-4.c:
...
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66215
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #22)
> Created attachment 35628 [details]
> Experimental fix 5
>
> Version 5 with the suggested changes and a new test case. Hopefully the
> last version before submi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66181
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46032
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66241
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46032
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to vries from comment #11)
> The ipa-pta solution no longer works. In 4.6, we had:
> ...
> # USE = anything
> # CLB = anything
> GOMP_parallel_startD.1048 (main._omp_fn.0D.1472, &.omp_data_o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66287
Bug ID: 66287
Summary: [C++11] A constexpr variable of "const int* const&"
cannot be initialized
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66290
Bug ID: 66290
Summary: wrong location for -Wunused-macros
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66214
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
Seems to be fixed by Honza's patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg02225.html / by his commit
r223608.
Should the test case be test-cased?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66082
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Tue May 26 10:20:41 2015
New Revision: 223677
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223677&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-26 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/66082
* trans-array.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66289
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66269
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59759
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66289
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66289
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66289
Bug ID: 66289
Summary: [5/6 Regression] "error: ambiguous template
instantiation" with partial specialization defined in
terms of alias template
Product: gcc
Vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #29 from Oleg Endo ---
BTW, there is still one unresolved known problem which can silently generate
wrong code: PR 56451
Although the testsuite FAIL might have disappeared, the issue hasn't been
actually fixed, as far as I know. In t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59759
--- Comment #12 from Gereon Kremer ---
And once again.
I just upgraded to gcc 5.1.0
Sure enough, it's not fixed...
Test_GCC.cpp: In substitution of ‘template void f(const A*) [with T
= ]’:
Test_GCC.cpp:25:7: required from here
Test_GCC.cpp:25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66142
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 25 May 2015, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66142
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66255
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #34 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sat, 23 May 2015, gil.hur at sf dot snu.ac.kr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
>
> --- Comment #33 from Chung-Kil Hur ---
> Dear Richard,
>
> Thanks for the detai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66288
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Before parallelization, we have:
...
doubleD.32 dataD.1837[1000];
doubleD.32 resultsD.1836[1000];
...
# VUSE <.MEM_19>
_6 = dataD.1837[idx_18];
_7 = _6 * 1.2199289457264239
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66252
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66275
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-w64-mingw32 |
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66252
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66288
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note that for the example from PR66285, with INDEX_TYPE long/unsigned long, we
vectorize without run-time aliasing test.
In that example, we start out with two restrict pointers. During aliasing, w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65701
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Summary|[5/6 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66276
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66272
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66142
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64045
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64525
--- Comment #2 from Maxim Kuvyrkov ---
Kugan's work-in-progress patches may fix this one.
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
