https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68117
--- Comment #20 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
I haven't seen this issue since Jason's GC related C++ patches went in:
r230201 and r230202.
But of course this may well be another statistical fluke.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68198
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I see what's happening here (and boy it's much better to be debugging with real
screens and a good night's sleep).
So imagine what happens when you build a thread path and on that path you've
got a block wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68197
--- Comment #2 from Mickael Guene ---
Anyway it's a bad usage since index must come from xalloc.
I was unable to find what the specifications say in case of using a negative
index (or invalid index), do you have some inputs in this case ?
/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20151112 (experimental) [trunk revision 230270] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O2 -c small.c
$ gcc-5.2 -O3 -c small.c
$
$ gcc-trunk -O3 -c small.c
small.c: In function ‘fn1’:
small.c:5:1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68311
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68326
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68317
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
--- Comme
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20151112 (experimental) [trunk revision 230270] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O2 -c small.c
small.c: In function ‘fn2’:
small.c:12:27: warning: iteration 2147483638 invokes undefined behavior
[-Waggressive-loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68293
--- Comment #7 from Zdenek Sojka ---
At least for aarch64, this is fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68311
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, I though common inside {} are sequenced points.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68325
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68325
Bug ID: 68325
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds on a negative subscript into a
flexible array member
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62109
--- Comment #13 from David ---
Rumor has it that Phase 1 may be closing soon. Is there something else I need
to do here?
-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20151112 (experimental) [trunk revision 230270] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O2 -c small.c
$ gcc-5.2 -O3 -c small.c
$
$ gcc-trunk -O3 -c small.c
small.c: In function ‘fn1’:
small.c:4:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
fn1 ()
^
0xaf782f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67613
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67613
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Nov 13 01:59:03 2015
New Revision: 230285
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230285&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR driver/67613 - spell suggestions for misspelled command line options
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68277
--- Comment #7 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #6)
I've changed the predicate of the 2nd operand to arith_operand instead
of const_int_operand in your patch and run testsuite. There is one new
failure:
FAIL: g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68318
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68318
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Nov 13 01:11:10 2015
New Revision: 230282
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230282&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-12 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/68318
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68323
Bug ID: 68323
Summary: chrono reference to ‘literals’ namespace is ambiguous
when using gnu-versioned-namespace
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68115
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from John David A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68322
Bug ID: 68322
Summary: -Wodr warning on templates should list the
instantiation
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68319
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68318
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Nov 13 00:14:32 2015
New Revision: 230278
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230278&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-12 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/68318
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67872
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68318
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68269
Gary Funck changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gary at intrepid dot com
--- Comment #2 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68290
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68290
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> No, even for the false edge we can record proper expressions, see
> record_conds and how it handles the cases if the condition was true or false.
>
record_conds inse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68117
--- Comment #19 from Gary Funck ---
We see similar failure an x86-64 opensuse VM in the 32-bit libgfortran build
but on a different file: eoshift.c. After removing the .lo and .o files and
re-running make, the build completed without error. As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67220
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #36697|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 36699
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36699&action=edit
tree dump
It is compiled with -O2 -mx32.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68117
--- Comment #18 from Gary Funck ---
(In reply to Gary Funck from comment #17)
> We're seeing this ICE on x86-64, while building the 32-bit libgfortran.
> We're building the target libraries with -O3 with GCC compiler checks
> enabled.
Taking gar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68117
--- Comment #17 from Gary Funck ---
We're seeing this ICE on x86-64, while building the 32-bit libgfortran.
We're building the target libraries with -O3 with GCC compiler checks enabled.
libtool: compile: /eng/upc/dev/gary/gupc-dev/bld/gupc/./g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67784
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67784
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Nov 12 21:07:04 2015
New Revision: 230273
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230273&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/67784
* c-parser.c (c_parser_for_statement): Recla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162
--- Comment #10 from Joseph S. Myers ---
I have verified that the patch in comment#7, (a) on its own and (b) together
with my patch, does not cause any regressions on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. My
inclination would be that this patch should go in, wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68292
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68292
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68318
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68321
Bug ID: 68321
Summary: wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu (in 64-bit mode)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68320
Bug ID: 68320
Summary: internal compiler error: in declspecs_add_type
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68320
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67784
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
And another that seems to be caused by something else and isn't fixed by my
patch:
void
h ()
{
for (typedef int T;;)
if (1)
;
T *x;
x = 0;
}
I'm opening a separate PR for this one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67784
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Note that I've found an ICE-on-invalid:
void
h ()
{
int T;
for (typedef int T;;)
if (1)
;
T *x;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68319
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Same issue with interface of a function.
Compiles if interface is effectivly not used :
$ cat z1x.f90
module m
interface
subroutine s
entry e
end
end interface
contains
subr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68319
Bug ID: 68319
Summary: ICE on using interface with included entry
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68316
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The documentation Marc referred to doesn't say anything about which header to
use. If you followed what it says in the #error you quoted it would have
worked.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68318
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Somehow similar for functions :
$ cat z3.f90
module m
contains
real function f1()
entry e()
end
real function f2()
entry e()
end
end module
$ gfortran -g -O0 -Wall -fcheck=all -c z3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68318
Bug ID: 68318
Summary: ICE on duplicate entry declarations
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68316
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey Walton ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> As the comment says, you need to include not
OK, thanks. Here we were told to follow Intels docs:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68081. We had
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68317
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 36698
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36698&action=edit
C source code
I just tried to compile the attached code with gcc trunk dated 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68316
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jeffrey Walton from comment #0)
> Adding a __has_include to guard appears to open another can of
> worms:
>
> $ g++ -mrdseed rdseed.cxx -o rdseed.exe
> rdseed.cxx:4:45: error: missing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68291
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68291
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68316
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56158
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk, probably worth backporting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56158
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Nov 12 17:08:42 2015
New Revision: 230267
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230267&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Extend valid values of iostream bitmask types
PR libstdc++/5615
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68312
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
One another:
algrind --leak-check=yes --num-callers=100 --trace-children=yes
--suppressions=/home/marxin/Programming/gcc2/gcc.supp --error-exitcode=111 -q
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc2/objdir/gcc/xgcc
-B/hom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68316
Bug ID: 68316
Summary: GCC C++ compiler cannot compile a program using RDESED
intrinsics
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68313
wd11 at leicester dot ac.uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |5.1.0
--- Comment #2 from w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67784
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68035
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68035
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu Nov 12 15:16:00 2015
New Revision: 230263
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230263&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR ipa/68035
PR ipa/68035
* ipa-icf.c (void sem_item:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68315
Bug ID: 68315
Summary: ivdep has no effect in parloops
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68313
Johannes Schaub changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||schaub.johannes@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68306
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68314
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68314
Bug ID: 68314
Summary: [6 Regression] Invalid read in
build_pbb_minimal_scattering_polyhedrons
(graphite-sese-to-poly.c:148)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67478
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc-ibm-aix*
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68192
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68192
Torbjörn Gard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tgard at opentext dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68306
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68306
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Nov 12 14:02:44 2015
New Revision: 230260
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230260&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-12 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/68306
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68247
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68247
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
RFC: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg01492.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67784
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The reason is as stated in comment#1: it's necessary to examine the token
after "if ( 1 ) ;" to see if it's the "else" keyword; if it were "else",
that token would be within the C99/C11 blo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68313
Bug ID: 68313
Summary: "using" shadows declaration
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67220
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 36697
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36697&action=edit
tree dump
It is compiled with -O2 -mx32.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Can you please attach -details dumps of the pass instance that does this?
It is done in fre pass.
> Note that the large number '5368709811' (0x1fff) might point
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67784
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68062
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015, uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68062
>
> --- Comment #8 from Ulrich Weigand ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68305
--- Comment #4 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Thu Nov 12 12:59:05 2015
New Revision: 230252
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230252&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR tree-optimization/68305
* tree-vect-slp.c (ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66408
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63932
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50221
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68062
--- Comment #8 from Ulrich Weigand ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> I think there was some inconsistencies in C vs. C++ FEs in this area (but as
> usual I don't remember exactly but I remember Uli complaining about it again
> at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68306
Ulrich Weigand changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68271
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
--- Comment #19 from Domin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68271
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yes, so that we don't forget to apply a real fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68271
--- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Ny need to keep this PR opened?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68286
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67265
--- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Nov 12 12:01:40 2015
New Revision: 230249
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230249&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/67265
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_adjust_sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67265
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Nov 12 11:59:23 2015
New Revision: 230247
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230247&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/67265
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_adjust_sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67265
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Nov 12 11:55:11 2015
New Revision: 230245
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230245&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/67265
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_adjust_sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68291
--- Comment #2 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Should be fixed by r230238.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68293
--- Comment #6 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Should be fixed by r230238.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68286
--- Comment #4 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Should be fixed by r230238.
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
