https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95343
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95343
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Martin Jambor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:61e4ee3f2c0e3d77602c87866cd5c0cfb81d5da2
commit r10-8421-g61e4ee3f2c0e3d77602c87866cd5c0cfb81d5da2
Author: Martin Jambor
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95343
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:053c88093a45f175f446eda009f3312e4e508514
commit r11-1787-g053c88093a45f175f446eda009f3312e4e508514
Author: Martin Jambor
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95343
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a patch series on the mailing list to address PR 93385 and the
last patch in it also addresses this issue and allows gdb to print the correct
value of the removed parameter:
https://gcc.gnu.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95343
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #1)
> ...I am testing a patch which can make gdb actually show
> the correct 4.
I meant the correct value 2, of course.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95343
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
