http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59541
Bug ID: 59541
Summary: [4.9 Regression] Revision 206070 breaks bootstrap on
darwin
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59534
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59527
--- Comment #8 from Teresa Johnson ---
I can't reproduce this one using your source/profles and command line
(using a trunk updated to head last night plus my fix for the assert).
I verified that splitting is kicking in, but no error occurs. Do yo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59226
--- Comment #13 from David Kredba ---
Qtwebkit-4.8.5 still ICEs after that patch applied:
lto1: internal compiler error: in record_target_from_binfo, at ipa-devirt.c:673
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52773
--- Comment #8 from fdarkangel at gmail dot com ---
Persists in gcc 4.8.2.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52897
--- Comment #3 from fdarkangel at gmail dot com ---
Persists in gcc 4.8.2.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59540
Bug ID: 59540
Summary: ICE while building libcilkrt library with
--disable-bootstrap and --disable-checking
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59538
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Try:
// GCC Bug - bug.c
// Created by Arsham Skrenes on 2013-12-17
#include
#include
// Find the NTH prime number SAMPLES times
#define NTH 1
#define SAMPLES 5
int main(void)
{
struct timeva
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59538
--- Comment #6 from Arsham Skrenes ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #5)
> > Also, is there a directive that I can use to explicitly tell GCC
> > to not remove a loop (without having to resort to a compiler flag
> > which is glo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59539
Bug ID: 59539
Summary: Missed optimisation: VEX-prefixed operations don't
need aligned data
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39578
--- Comment #4 from John E. / TDM ---
I can confirm this has been fixed. Sorry for not doing so sooner.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35535
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Dec 17 23:43:22 2013
New Revision: 206074
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206074&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/35535
* gimple-fold.c (fold_gimple_assign): Attempt to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35535
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Dec 17 23:41:41 2013
New Revision: 206073
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206073&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/35535
* tree-vrp.c (extract_range_from_unary_expr_1):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18469
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 16 Dec 2013, ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> The macros required in crtstuff.c are:
> - HAVE_GAS_HIDDEN
> - HAVE_LD_EH_FRAME_HDR
Various target macros used in target code as well
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20262
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Indeed, I think the current token could reasonably be anything from
"assert" to the ")" ending the call to "assert", inclusive.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59520
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The main concerns for diagnostics in such cases are (a) that they are
meaningful and (b) that invalid code gets at least one error with
-pedantic-errors, and at least one warning or error wi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57702
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59535
--- Comment #7 from Yvan Roux ---
I'm not able to reproduce with today's trunk or rev #205887 built for
arm-none-linux-gnueabi, as the compiler ICEs in assign_by_spills
(lra-assign.c). What is your configuration ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #12 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Sat, 14 Dec 2013, jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com wrote:
> Similar inappropriate warning is generated for typedef-vs-variable as reported
> now by Adam Jackson. Again a mistaken use can
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59527
--- Comment #7 from tejohnson at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tejohnson
Date: Tue Dec 17 22:35:38 2013
New Revision: 206072
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206072&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-17 Teresa Johnson
PR gcov-profile/59527
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59538
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Also, is there a directive that I can use to explicitly tell GCC
> to not remove a loop (without having to resort to a compiler flag
> which is global, printing a variable, or using the 'volatile' k
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59350
--- Comment #34 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #33)
> OK, thanks for the testcase, which boils down to:
FAIL for me too
r205459 PASS
r205461, r206013 FAIL
#1 from Marek Polacek ---
I can't reproduce this one with gcc version 4.9.0 20131217.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52468
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59513
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
I installed foil today through fink and noticed that the fortran files are
compiled (gfortran 4.8.2) with '-O0 -fdefault-real-8 -fdefault-integer-8'. Are
you using these options?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59523
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59527
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
The testcase is too big to attach.
% wget trippelsdorf.de/testcase.tar.bz2
% tar xvjf testcase.tar.bz2
% g++ -w -nostdlib -r -flto=4 -fprofile-use -fprofile-correction
-march=amdfam10 -fno-rtti -fno-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50895
--- Comment #7 from Kai Tietz ---
*** Bug 52468 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59523
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 17 21:36:21 2013
New Revision: 206069
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206069&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/59523
* tree-vectorizer.c (fold_loop_vectorized
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59538
Arsham Skrenes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59527
--- Comment #5 from Teresa Johnson ---
This seems like a separate issue - can you give me a reproducer? The
attached minimized test case does not hit this.
Thanks,
Teresa
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM, trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> ht
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59527
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59538
--- Comment #4 from Arsham Skrenes ---
Can I suggest then that GCC outputs a compiler warning when it removes a loop?
It outputs warnings for unused variables as well as implicit casting, so why
not have a warning for removing loops?
Also, is the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
It's not a matter of cost model, but if propagating the values to their uses.
I haven't looked closely at the tracer, but wouldn't it benefit by having
constants in particular propagated to their uses?
Yes,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59538
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34723
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|19794 |
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59471
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> You mean BIT_FIELD_REF argument can be a vector? Sure. But the type of the
> BIT_FIELD_REF itself?
Yes, the type of the BIT_FIELD_REF itself. A quick grep gives:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39578
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59147
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Tracer depends on the usual estimate_num_insns limits
> (it is 12 years since I wrote it, so what I recall)
note that one impotant thing that changed in those 12 years is that I
originally carefuly tuned tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59265
--- Comment #23 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Here's a testcase:
tmp % wget trippelsdorf.de/cceI2Nud.ltrans22.o.bz2
tmp % bzip2 -d cceI2Nud.ltrans22.o.bz2
tmp % g++ -xlto -fltrans cceI2Nud.ltrans22.o
In member function ‘extractBetween’:
lto1: f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58115
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
> It's not a matter of cost model, but if propagating the values to their uses.
> I haven't looked closely at the tracer, but wouldn't it benefit by having
> constants in particular propagated to their uses?
T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59433
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59432
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59538
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58701
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59430
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59538
Bug ID: 59538
Summary: Optimization of -O2 or higher creates incorrect code
in loop
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59431
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58668
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54685
--- Comment #9 from Oleg Endo ---
This is basically the same issue as PR 59533. emit_store_flag_1 in expmed.c
always expands the not-shift because the assumption there is that it's cheaper,
which is not true for SH.
The pre-peephole idea from ht
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
> You certainly don't want to put something between DOM and phi-only-cprop.
> Jump
> threading will tend to expose lots of degenerate PHIs. phi-only-cprop
> eliminates those degenerates. We could have used t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59519
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59533
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo ---
This is basically the same issue as PR 54685.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58668
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #6 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59471
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
You mean BIT_FIELD_REF argument can be a vector? Sure. But the type of the
BIT_FIELD_REF itself?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59471
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> I think BIT_FIELD_REF's type can't be a vector,
Er, I am quite sure a BIT_FIELD_REF can be a vector. Maybe that wasn't a
general statement and I missed the context?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59085
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Main issue seems to be that VRP messes up on:
# ap_2 = PHI
# prephitmp_14 = PHI <&MEM[(void *)&_ZTV1A + 16B](5)>
_19 = *prephitmp_14;
here it somehow won't constant propagate the load.
Index: passes.def
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
"hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote:
>http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
>
>Jan Hubicka changed:
>
> What|Removed |Added
>--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58290
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This is actually the same testcase, just somewhat manually reduced and with
symbol names simplified.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58290
--- Comment #8 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> I've looked at this some more and it seems Richard's change was the right
> fix for this, so I've committed the testcase and am closing this.
Thanks. I noti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Following patch gets rid of OBJ_TYPE_REF
Index: value-prof.c
===
--- value-prof.c(revision 206040)
+++ value-prof.c(working copy)
@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58290
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
rtran --version
GNU Fortran (GCC) 4.9.0 20131217 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
GNU Fortran comes with NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
You may redistribute copies of GNU Fortran
under the terms of the GNU General Public License.
For more information about these matters, see the file named COPYING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58290
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 17 17:35:59 2013
New Revision: 206062
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206062&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/58290
* gfortran.dg/pr58290.f90: New test.
Added:
trunk/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45631
davidxl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xinliangli at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59147
--- Comment #5 from rglindley at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Kai Tietz from comment #4)
> I've tested testcase on x86_64-w64-mingw32 cross-compiler, and I can't
> reproduce issue with current trunk.
> As 4.6.1 isn't supported anymore upstream, c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59466
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59233
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59147
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45885
Ryan Mansfield changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43588
Ryan Mansfield changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49521
Ryan Mansfield changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59233
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45814
Ryan Mansfield changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45511
Ryan Mansfield changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42949
Ryan Mansfield changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59511
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> One movdqa started appearing with r204212, the second movdqa started
> appearing with r204752. Vlad, can you please have a look?
It seems the changes triggere
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45631
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davidxl at google dot com
--- Comment #5 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59226
--- Comment #12 from Alexander Ivchenko ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #11)
> (In reply to Alexander Ivchenko from comment #10)
> > Patch from comment #7 didn't cure Android build as well..
>
> Can you try the patch from PR5825
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55150
Ryan Mansfield changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47462
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47316
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
The testcase provided now generates:
void foo(A*) (struct A * a)
{
int (*__vtbl_ptr_type) () * _3;
int (*__vtbl_ptr_type) () _4;
int i.0_6;
int i.1_7;
void * PROF_9;
int i.2_11;
int i.3_12;
:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47316
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51610
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
--- Comment #5 from Dominique
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42478
Bug 42478 depends on bug 41823, which changed state.
Bug 41823 Summary: gcc/fortran/trans-openmp.c: possible null pointer dereference
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41823
What|Removed |Added
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41823
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35913
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59350
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54957
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59523
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59523
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59534
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 17 15:17:00 2013
New Revision: 206051
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206051&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/59534
* testsuite/libgomp.fortran/retval1.f90 (e5): Av
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55498
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Summa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59486
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59486
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
