https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84780
--- Comment #10 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
> Created attachment 43631 [details]
> proposed patch
>
> I cannot reproduce that exact generated code; maybe it needs tuning for some
> particular CPU?
>
>
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: v.reshetnikov at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The following C++ code causes an ICE in GCC 8.0.1 20180312 (tested with
https://godbolt.org/):
/* SOURCE */
struct S
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: v.reshetnikov at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The following C++ code causes an ICE in GCC 8.0.1 20180312 (tested with
https://godbolt.org/):
/* SOURCE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63907
--- Comment #13 from David Vitek ---
Created attachment 43639
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43639&action=edit
hack for g++4.5.3 and old libc compatibility
This is a nasty hack and you should check that your system's defini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63907
--- Comment #12 from David Vitek ---
Created attachment 43638
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43638&action=edit
patch for g++7.3 and old libc
This patch fixes the parse error with newer versions of g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63907
David Vitek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dvitek at grammatech dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83294
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
FWIW C++ Core DR 739 is a DR against C++11 and C++98, so should be considered
to apply pre-C++14 too.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#739
This has no bearing on the C behaviou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58407
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58407
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83294
--- Comment #7 from Rich Felker ---
Thanks. I think between footnote 125 and DR#315 the intent is clear and this
bug report stands as written.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84808
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 12 23:40:20 2018
New Revision: 258471
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258471&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/84808
* constexpr.c (find_array_ctor_elt): Don't us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84808
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84704
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84704
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 12 23:39:21 2018
New Revision: 258470
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258470&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/84704
* tree.c (stabilize_reference_1): Return save
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83294
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The response to C99 DR#315 says that for all the types not specifying
"signed" or "unsigned" explicitly, if an implementation accepts them as
bit-field types it's implementation-defined wha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84838
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84773
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84773
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Mar 12 23:32:30 2018
New Revision: 258469
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258469&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/84773 use aligned alloc functions for FreeBSD and MinGW
cros
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83662
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Mar 12 23:32:30 2018
New Revision: 258469
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258469&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/84773 use aligned alloc functions for FreeBSD and MinGW
cros
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83662
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.4
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84838
Bug ID: 84838
Summary: Minor grammar fixes for x86 options
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44035
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Since we have docstring relicensing maintainers, I don't think this is an
issue now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84773
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Mar 12 22:52:16 2018
New Revision: 258468
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258468&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/84773 use aligned alloc functions for FreeBSD and MinGW
cros
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83662
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Mar 12 22:52:16 2018
New Revision: 258468
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258468&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/84773 use aligned alloc functions for FreeBSD and MinGW
cros
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82813
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82813
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Mar 12 22:40:19 2018
New Revision: 258467
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258467&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/82813
* gcc-interface/misc.c (gnat_post_options
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82813
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Mar 12 22:40:05 2018
New Revision: 258466
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258466&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/82813
* gcc-interface/misc.c (gnat_post_options
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34118
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |SUSPENDED
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34118
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46981
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84717
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The 'd' suffix, and the FLOAT_CONST_DECIMAL64 pragma, were in TR
24732:2009. Those features were not carried forward to the newer decimal
floating-point specification in TS 18661-2:2015.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84837
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|unqualified lookup in |[DR 1906] unqualified
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84796
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84830
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84835
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84835
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell ---
We should be resetting the language linkage to C++ before adding lambda members
(and the lambda type too?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84837
Bug ID: 84837
Summary: unqualified lookup in friend declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84835
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84836
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84836
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7)
> > We need to first decide what we want out of i386 atomic.
> > Please send a post to
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/forum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7)
> We need to first decide what we want out of i386 atomic.
> Please send a post to
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/ia32-abi
Did this ever get taken to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83939
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83939
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Mar 12 18:26:28 2018
New Revision: 258457
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258457&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-12 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/83939
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84834
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71660
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #14)
> It was trying to guard against exactly what you said above: that the
> alignment of a QAtomicInteger was exactly the same as the alignment of a
> plain T in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84834
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83939
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Mar 12 18:15:42 2018
New Revision: 258456
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258456&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-12 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/83939
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84834
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84835
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84836
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84774
Bug 84774 depends on bug 83456, which changed state.
Bug 83456 Summary: -Wrestrict false positive on a non-overlapping memcpy in an
inline function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83456
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83456
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83456
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Mon Mar 12 18:04:16 2018
New Revision: 258455
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258455&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/83456 - -Wrestrict false positive on a non-overlappin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84836
Bug ID: 84836
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in pop_local_binding, at
cp/name-lookup.c:2054
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84834
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r243255.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84835
Bug ID: 84835
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in add_method, at cp/class.c:996
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84834
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84829
--- Comment #12 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Programs linked with glibc 2.26 will continue to work as expected.
_LIB_VERSION has become a compat symbol, so it's newly linked programs
that can't set it any more (and in static libm, a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84834
Bug ID: 84834
Summary: [7/8 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected
integer_cst, have complex_cst in to_wide, at
tree.h:5527
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84829
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018, carlos at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84829
>
> --- Comment #8 from Carlos O'Donell ---
> (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84833
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84833
Bug ID: 84833
Summary: [8 Regression] target_clones regression since r251047
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84817
Svante Signell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84829
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
As I said in https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22951#c2 I
think uses of -mieee-fp are cargo-culted just like those of -lieee. I
think the appropriate GCC fix is simply to ma
e.
However, I found the revert patch you referred to:
gcc.git-b12c2c48c2c6aa1db9e6c50f6b26330d9caf.patch
and applied it to gcc-8-8-20180310-1, and the build completed. I did also build
gcc-8-8-20180312-2 and that went fine too. So you can close this bug now.
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84782
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Slight correction: the using-declaration doesn't have no effect in general, but
it shouldn't change the result of this program.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84832
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84811
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
get_stored_val isn't called at all for me. known_subrange_p is just never
true, there is no overlap between any of the stores.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18141
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84782
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/home/su/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 8.0.1 20180312 (experimental) [trunk revision 258447] (GCC)
$
$ gcctk -O3 -c small.c
during RTL pass: dse1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84829
--- Comment #9 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Carlos O'Donell from comment #8)
> > It matters from the users' point of view. I think it's better to give them
> > a build error when they use unsupported functionality, rather than giving
> > t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83941
Jhon Merced changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jhonmerced5 at gmx dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84829
--- Comment #8 from Carlos O'Donell ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> > -mieee-fp does affect code generation on x86 and m68k, but I don't see how
> > it is related to any changes in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84778
david.applegate at woodplc dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84829
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Schwab ---
On m68k -mieee-fp is a no-op.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84829
--- Comment #6 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> -mieee-fp does affect code generation on x86 and m68k, but I don't see how
> it is related to any changes in glibc.
> And besides code generation changes it affe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84778
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 10:16:19AM +, david.applegate at woodplc dot com
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84778
>
> --- Comment #3 from david.applegate at woodplc dot com ---
> Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84829
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
-mieee-fp does affect code generation on x86 and m68k, but I don't see how it
is related to any changes in glibc.
And besides code generation changes it affects whether -lieee is linked in or
not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84829
--- Comment #4 from Florian Weimer ---
Does -mieee-fp still impact code generation on i386? What about x86-64 with
SSE2?
I would expect that existing users of -mieee-fp receive an error when they
compile and link with a upgraded glibc, so I don
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84783
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Peryt ---
Oh, ok I see now version in report. Sorry, my mistake. It was added to trunk
and not backported.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84783
--- Comment #1 from Sebastian Peryt ---
It was added in r249759 I can see it in latest trunk. Maybe you have some old
version of GCC?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83451
--- Comment #3 from John David Anglin ---
It turns out we adjust the subreg in pa_emit_move_sequence but never emit
an insn with it. The code just falls through and emits the unrecognizable
insn. Testing a fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84827
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84829
--- Comment #3 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> I'd say the right thing is to keep libieee.a around, even if it will be an
> empty ar archive.
Agreed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84829
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'd say the right thing is to keep libieee.a around, even if it will be an
empty ar archive.
GCC is not the linker and doesn't have the library search logic the linker has,
so it is hard to add -lieee for -m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84829
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84832
Bug ID: 84832
Summary: Base class member function incorrectly introduced by
using-declarator
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45616
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84827
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84355
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Mar 12 14:40:45 2018
New Revision: 258451
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258451&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/84355 - ICE with deduction for member class template.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84780
--- Comment #9 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
> Created attachment 43631 [details]
> proposed patch
>
> I cannot reproduce that exact generated code; maybe it needs tuning for some
> particular CPU?
>
> C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84802
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84820
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84806
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84828
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84780
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84676
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84485
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7 Regression]|[6 Regression] Vectorising
1 - 100 of 186 matches
Mail list logo