https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92663
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92663
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92663
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> This sounds like it could be dangerous from a security context... currently
> no network connection is needed to use gcc, it would be a major
> disappointment i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92663
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92663
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
True, but I still think the list needs to be compiled in to the binaries
statically. If that gave incorrect results in some cases (because a bug was
thought to be fixed when the static list was generated, b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92663
--- Comment #6 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
My suggestion would be to uniformly include the information about whether a bug
has been closed, irrespective of its nature. So yes, un-optimal code
generation might also be listed, and I think the us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92663
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92663
--- Comment #8 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
Ok, thanks for the feedback!
