https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93316
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #7)
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #6)
> [...]
> > On Solaris (both sparc and x86), all analyzer testsuite failures are
> > gone.
>
> Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93406
jerome.h...@planete-sciences.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91006
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92469
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
-"What seems to be the problem?"
-"It hurts when I do this."
-"Then don't do that."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86912
Kim Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kim.nilsson at effnet dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91838
--- Comment #7 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> So the issue started with r8-349-gcc5b8f3d568e95ce74e03d8d87ada71117a6c106
> and disappeared in r10-2445-g5fbc8ab48a57a75e0ce064befc30dee3dc63327a.
Hi Martin, H
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92763
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ad8e2415d6e2dc7c6f1206e78d48f999ff6b0bc4
commit r10-6199-gad8e2415d6e2dc7c6f1206e78d48f999ff6b0bc4
Author: Christophe Lyon
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93375
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86912
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78305
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
*** Bug 71608 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71608
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91975
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
On GCC 10.0 trunk, f0 is not unrolled anymore (as it is with GCC 9.2). g0 is
still not unrolled. All other functions are still unrolled as before in GCC
10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92924
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e3fe0070c189e214d51cfc314591b6ffa526fb2f
commit r10-6200-ge3fe0070c189e214d51cfc314591b6ffa526fb2f
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Fri J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93411
Bug ID: 93411
Summary: variable reference to constant array with same
elements not folded
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
-gnu-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r10-6200-ge3fe0070c18-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 10.0.1 20200124 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92989
--- Comment #3 from Dragan Mladjenovic ---
Created attachment 47703
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47703&action=edit
Reproducer for additional failure
Toolchain build seems to still contain this failure that can be reproduc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91947
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91947
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e2bcf65feea9590e6f260862b3c740b5e803f851
commit r9-8174-ge2bcf65feea9590e6f260862b3c740b5e803f851
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91947
--- Comment #19 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Fixed for gcc-9 as well, please let me know if you see any more build issues
> here.
Sure, thanks for the quick resolution!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93409
Andrew Stubbs changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ams at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93365
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |markeggleston at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92294
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93409
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93413
Bug ID: 93413
Summary: Destructor definition not found during constant
evaluation
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93375
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93316
--- Comment #9 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #8)
> (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #7)
> > (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #6)
> > [...]
> > > On Solaris (both sparc and x86), all ana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93414
Bug ID: 93414
Summary: Bad diagnostics for dynamic_cast during constant
evaluation: implementation details leak out
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93316
--- Comment #10 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #9)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #8)
[...]
> I haven't seen failures before.
^ "these failures", I meant to say
[...]
> >
> > Do you wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93415
Bug ID: 93415
Summary: Previous declaration of template without default
arguments leads to incorrect overload resolution
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93409
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose ---
this is needed for the bootstrap, you have to build the plugin for all
multilibs, although it's discarded on install.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93414
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91113
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: doko at ubuntu dot com
Target Milestone: ---
seen with 20200124 on s390x-linux-gnu. It tells it cannot be reproduced, but I
see it repeatedly.
gcc configured
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93417
Bug ID: 93417
Summary: PPC: Support the "Flag Output Operands" so inline-asm
can avoid having to copy CRx to GPR
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93177
--- Comment #14 from Matt Emmerton ---
I'd like to thank everyone for the great discussion so far.
Here's a summary of where we are at this point.
1) sync intrinsics
Useful, but with caveats.
2) cache prefetch intrinsics
Implemented via __bui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93418
Bug ID: 93418
Summary: GCC incorrectly constant propagates _mm_sllv/srlv/srav
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93418
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|regression |target
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93365
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 12:36:45PM +, markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> gfc_simplify_expr calls simplify_parameter_variable which for zero size
> arrays it creates a new gfc_expr structure with the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93418
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93419
Bug ID: 93419
Summary: __has_attribute(ifunc) false positive on hurd and
kfreebsd
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93418
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The bug is most likely inside ix86_fold_builtin.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93419
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
__has_attribute(ifunc) is true as the attribute is supported all the way
through the compiler up to the point where it gets emitted.
Really __has_attribute is a bad execuse for not doing proper feature testi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13721
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:64c9f2d9972ad359a32f0a97ee0a806c2532db15
commit r10-6207-g64c9f2d9972ad359a32f0a97ee0a806c2532db15
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Fri Jan 24
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93419
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think the docs are clear here too:
The special operator __has_attribute (operand) may be used in ‘#if’ and ‘#elif’
expressions to test whether the attribute referenced by its operand is
recognized by GCC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13721
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93419
--- Comment #3 from kloetzl ---
Hm, I feared that this would be the answer I would get. This makes GCCs
__has_attribute much less useful than Clangs version where the docs state:
“This function-like macro takes a single identifier argument that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93420
Bug ID: 93420
Summary: Deducing "T C::* const&" from a non-const
pointer-to-member-function fails
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93349
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Candidate patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg01673.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93279
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Since r9-6405-gbddee796d0b4800b5ac3d7e7e9e315c23799424d, when we see in a
lambda a use of an operator that might be overloaded, we do name lookup and
save it away in an internal attribute on the lambda call o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93419
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93421
Bug ID: 93421
Summary: futex.cc use of futex syscall is not time64-compatible
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91470
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|11.0
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93421
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92852
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:28a5d5c365044710ba32510b9bec67dd40562154
commit r10-6210-g28a5d5c365044710ba32510b9bec67dd40562154
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Th
igured with: ../gcc-git/configure --prefix=/home/abenson/Galacticus/Tools
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --disable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 10.0.1 20200124 (experimental) (GCC)
$ gfortran -c test4.mod.F90 -o test4.mod.o
test4.mod.F90
six
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 10.0.1 20200124 (experimental) (GCC)
$ gfortran -c test2.mod.F90 -o test2.mod.o
test2.mod.F90:21:19:
21 | module procedure bp(s)
| 1
Error: MODULE PROCEDURE at (1) must be in a generic module interface
te
ed LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 10.0.1 20200124 (experimental) (GCC)
$ gfortran -c test3.mod.F90 -o test3.mod.o
f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
0xe1b2bf crash_signal
../../gcc-git/gcc/toplev.c:328
0x7fc2247331ef ???
/data001/abenson/Galacticus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93424
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Benson ---
Correction: The above code is valid (not invalid as I stated in the
description) as far as I can tell.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93316
--- Comment #11 from David Edelsohn ---
I continue to see setjmp failures on AIX.
FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/setjmp-7a.c expected multiline pattern lines 41-110 not
found:
FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/setjmp-7a.c (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93316
--- Comment #12 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #11)
> I continue to see setjmp failures on AIX.
>
[...]
> FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/setjmp-8.c (internal compiler error)
> during IPA pass: analyzer
> /nasfarm/edelsohn/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93316
--- Comment #13 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #12)
> (In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #11)
> > I continue to see setjmp failures on AIX.
> >
> [...]
> > FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/setjmp-8.c (internal compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93316
--- Comment #14 from David Edelsohn ---
Compiler version: 10.0.1 20200124 (experimental) [src revision
96f7f2867f2:1b708f12f4b:5026cbde65e724347cc2d2797026bb7bb12578f1] (GCC)
You can see https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2020-01/msg01180
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90275
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
I can confirm this is still going wrong in a raspberry pi
cross compiler dated 20200123.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92852
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7175893ad8010df1270af884a1810476e51a8cd9
commit r8-9953-g7175893ad8010df1270af884a1810476e51a8cd9
Author: Jason Merrill
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92778
--- Comment #6 from Hannes Hauswedell ---
Ok, the ICE on Linux is a different one. This particular ICE happens only on
FreeBSD. I have rebuilt GCC9 from source with fullbootstrap and without any
-march settings. The problem remains.
What can I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93425
Bug ID: 93425
Summary: Template parameter deduction failure when template
parameters have template template parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92852
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a4b7cf5865823df4b4df1d840d692dfc83fd0672
commit r9-8175-ga4b7cf5865823df4b4df1d840d692dfc83fd0672
Author: Jason Merrill
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92852
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93377
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93425
--- Comment #1 from andysem at mail dot ru ---
Also, the compilation succeeds if I explicitly specify the NumberT template
parameter at the call site.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92788
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93419
--- Comment #5 from kloetzl ---
Sorry for missing out the details, here goes:
I work in a Debian Hurd 20290705 image using qemu. The example file is given
above. Compiling with `gcc -Wall -Wextra ifunc.c` produces the following error.
error: i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93400
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93279
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92788
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
We shouldn't have threaded this to begin with. I think I see what went wrong
here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93316
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #14)
> Compiler version: 10.0.1 20200124 (experimental) [src revision
> 96f7f2867f2:1b708f12f4b:5026cbde65e724347cc2d2797026bb7bb12578f1] (GCC)
>
> You c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93279
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
This passes dg.exp but I haven't convinced it's the right solution so haven't
posted it...
--- a/gcc/cp/pt.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/pt.c
@@ -21849,8 +21849,12 @@ type_unification_real (tree tparms,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93166
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at redhat dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93316
--- Comment #16 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #15)
> (In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #14)
> > Compiler version: 10.0.1 20200124 (experimental) [src revision
> > 96f7f286
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93299
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] ICE in|[9 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93299
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d54a86cd92860e1108f43fae9329ccb0897f3e1d
commit r10-6212-gd54a86cd92860e1108f43fae9329ccb0897f3e1d
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93418
--- Comment #3 from Devin Hussey ---
I think I found the culprit commit.
Haven't set up a GCC build tree yet, though.
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/a51c4926712307787d133ba50af8c61393a9229b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93422
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Benson ---
Using a "result()" for the return value of the function allows this to compile
successfully:
module t
type :: a
contains
procedure :: p => ap
end type a
type, extends(a) :: b
contains
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6ccc19bd4d12379a0d9fce486ceba3207749424a
commit r10-6213-g6ccc19bd4d12379a0d9fce486ceba3207749424a
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91838
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #7)
> In file included from
> /data/tamchr01/write-access/gcc-git/libgcc/unwind-dw2.c:403:0:
> ./md-unwind-support.h: In function 'x86_64_fallback_frame_state':
> ./m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93410
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I doubt GCC 9 is going to change.
Indeed. The old approach was inconsistent with normal practice, as I said
in commit fe2bc27cdb6d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93418
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93376
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:14e5881e37771f1f58123e77c558adb3b90c8764
commit r10-6214-g14e5881e37771f1f58123e77c558adb3b90c8764
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93406
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93395
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5d782a8d909c5cc472c911c0ab4de0b890aad868
commit r10-6215-g5d782a8d909c5cc472c911c0ab4de0b890aad868
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38308
--- Comment #6 from Joseph S. Myers ---
*** Bug 93406 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93276
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 47705
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47705&action=edit
Patch that fixes the build with gcc 4.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93395
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93376
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93413
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93412
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93411
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93058
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93377
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:55dd44535d2e4e5703c0103c26e7c51ab8c502c4
commit r10-6216-g55dd44535d2e4e5703c0103c26e7c51ab8c502c4
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92836
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jb at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
