https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68133
--- Comment #2 from __vic ---
Too much black magic in the library already...
I think this is defect in specification/design of the class. But it's easier
for you guys to reach the committee than for me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68040
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Is this configured with --enable-checking=release ? This is probably an ICE
> that occurs earlier than reported with --enabled-checking=release.
> Configure with --enable-checking=yes.
I get the sam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51993
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42979
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||felix.abecassis at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59367
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #13 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Related bug: PR42979
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41517
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i686-pc-linux-gnu |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41517
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jbrandmeyer at google dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68119
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68040
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68140
Bug ID: 68140
Summary: ICE in vect_get_vec_def_for_operand, at
tree-vect-stmts.c:1413
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68065
--- Comment #15 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
On 2015-10-29 02:38, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
>>> I think it's undefined at the point where a type exceeds the limit on the
>>> size of an object (half the address space minus one byte)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68065
--- Comment #14 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, ch3root at openwall dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68065
>
> --- Comment #13 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
> On 2015-10-27 20:09, josep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68065
--- Comment #13 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
On 2015-10-27 20:09, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> I think it's undefined at the point where a type exceeds the limit on the
> size of an object (half the address space minus one byte)
Wait
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68040
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|FAIL: |FAIL:
|gcc.dg/t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68139
Bug ID: 68139
Summary: rethrow_if_nested should tolerate overloaded unary
operator&
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68124
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68124
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #5)
> Works for me at r229501.
>
> spawn -ignore SIGHUP /home/rth/gcc/bld/gcc/xgcc -B/home/rth/gcc/bld/gcc/
> /home/rth/gcc/git-master/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr64421.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68133
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68124
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #7 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68124
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68128
--- Comment #2 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Not very much information (compile flags?)
CPU: Intel Xeon E5-2687W v3 (
http://ark.intel.com/products/81909/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2687W-v3-25M-Cache-3_1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68124
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #5 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66068
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66068
--- Comment #8 from Jim Wilson ---
Author: wilson
Date: Wed Oct 28 20:02:01 2015
New Revision: 229505
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229505&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix for ICE with -g on testcase with incomplete types.
gcc/c/
PR de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68124
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67933
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Wed Oct 28 19:28:54 2015
New Revision: 229503
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229503&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-28 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/67933
* gfortran.dg/al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57117
--- Comment #7 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Dear Dominique,
That is entirely possible. I concentrated exclusively on reshape. I
will have a look at the original problem later.
Thanks a lot
Paul
On 28 October 2015 at 18:24, d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68138
Bug ID: 68138
Summary: "operator== is ambiguous" when comparing a tuple
containing values with one containing refs
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67999
--- Comment #25 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
On 28.10.2015 03:12, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
>> What is missing in the discussion is a cost of support in gcc of objects
>> with size > PTRDIFF_MAX. I guess overhead in compiled code wou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68130
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin14 |x86_64-apple-darwin1*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67265
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|ebotcazou at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67265
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
For the minimal testcase we can do:
Index: ira.c
===
--- ira.c (revision 229402)
+++ ira.c (working copy)
@@ -2273,7 +2273,9 @@ ira
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67839
--- Comment #2 from denisc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: denisc
Date: Wed Oct 28 17:35:27 2015
New Revision: 229495
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229495&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog
PR target/67839
* config/avr/pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57117
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Created attachment 36609 [details]
> Draft patch for the PR
With this patch, the tests in this PR compile. However it seems that there is a
remaining issue with "allocate(y(3,3), source=transpose(x)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67265
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68130
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
This PR seems fixed/papered over by the patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-10/msg00163.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46588
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65962
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68065
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66870
--- Comment #33 from boger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: boger
Date: Wed Oct 28 16:00:46 2015
New Revision: 229493
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229493&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport of r229009
PR66870 PowerPC64 Enable gold linker with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67968
--- Comment #13 from gong_su at hotmail dot com ---
Hi Dominik, with the patch you gave me for the gcc-6 development branch, the
cgo related bug is now fixed and ethash.go compiles fine without modification.
But the ICE still happens.
github.com/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68137
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #29 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 68137 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68136
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68137
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68137
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68137
>
> Bug ID: 68137
>Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/ftrapv-2.c * ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57117
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 36609
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36609&action=edit
Draft patch for the PR
The two TODOs should be noted. These must be fixed before submission. However,
this patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68137
Bug ID: 68137
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/ftrapv-2.c * execution test on
x86_64-apple-darwin14
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68134
--- Comment #2 from James Greenhalgh ---
Created attachment 36608
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36608&action=edit
testcasem, no arm_neon.h dependency
Second testcase stripping the arm_neon.h stuff and using only GCC vector
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68136
--- Comment #1 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This came out of pr67462
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68136
Bug ID: 68136
Summary: missed tree-level optimization with redundant
computations
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
--- Comment #3 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Sorry, I've got swamped by work and never got around to this. I will try
harder now :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68130
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 36607
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36607&action=edit
Dump file with -Os -m32 -fno-tree-pre -fdump-rtl-expand-details and r228971
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68130
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 36606
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36606&action=edit
Dump file with -Os -m32 -fno-tree-pre -fdump-rtl-expand-details and r228970
> Just double-checking - th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68102
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68135
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67600
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 28 13:44:18 2015
New Revision: 229485
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229485&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-10-28 Richard Biener
PR ipa/67600
* g++.dg/to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67600
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Summary|[5/6 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68130
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68130
>
> Dominique d'Humieres changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68117
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68102
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Wed Oct 28 13:32:17 2015
New Revision: 229483
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229483&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR 68102: Check that operand is REG before check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68135
Bug ID: 68135
Summary: [6 Regression] profiledbootstrap failure with
--with-build-config=bootstrap-lto
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67141
--- Comment #9 from xantares09 at hotmail dot com ---
I can confirm the patch from gcc-5 branch applied on top of 5.2.0 fixes the
mingw problem.
Thanks a lot.
xan.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68130
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68130
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Ok. The FRE2 difference is interesting but ok. We CSE
_7 = __builtin_signbit (1.299523162841796875e+0);
if (_7 != 0)
goto ;
else
goto ;
:
:
# iftmp.9_8 = PHI <-1.0e+0(2), 1.0e+0(3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68065
--- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, ch3root at openwall dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #10 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
> On 2015-10-27 20:09, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> > I think it's undefi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68131
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> We indeed do not have this optimization, only A + CST CMP CST to A CMP CST'
> and related. Note that _9 might be negative so we also need range info
> for this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68131
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68117
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Probably not.
Yes, it doesn't help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68134
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68112
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Not exactly sure but at least GCC doesn't take advantage of any undefinedness
in
left-shifts (apart from the shift count being in-range for the type).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68134
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68116
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |c++
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68115
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68134
Bug ID: 68134
Summary: vector-of-one-int64_t comparison ICE on
aarch64-none-elf
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68131
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68117
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Probably not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68117
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68119
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68120
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68122
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||trans-mem
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68132
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68123
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68133
Bug ID: 68133
Summary: constexpr basic_string_view(const _CharT* __str)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68130
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 36604
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36604&action=edit
bzipped tar file
> Did you specifically narrow the issue down to r228971?
Yes.
> If so can you pleas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68127
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68128
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, openmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68129
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68132
Bug ID: 68132
Summary: internal compiler error,unrecognizable insn
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68130
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68131
Bug ID: 68131
Summary: missed optimization and warning for broken overflow
check
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68065
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
On 2015-10-27 20:09, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> I think it's undefined at the point where a type exceeds the limit on the
> size of an object
This would probably be the most reasonable a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68130
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 36602
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36602&action=edit
Reduced test
I have tried to reduce the test further, but when I comment a line the test
succeeds.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68130
Bug ID: 68130
Summary: [6 Regression] gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_2.f90 is
miscomputed with '-Os -m32' on x86_64-apple-darwin14
after r228971
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56956
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68112
--- Comment #2 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So (a << CONSTANT) is not equivalent to a * (1<
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68129
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
We should define TARGET_SUPPORTS_WIDE_INT for aarch64 after doing the
prerequisite auditing regarding CONST_DOUBLEs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65962
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 28 10:09:37 2015
New Revision: 229481
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229481&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-10-28 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/65962
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
