https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
--- Comment #21 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #20)
> For libstdc++ the default (without --enable-werror or --disable-werror) is
> to add $(WERROR_FLAG) to WARN_FLAGS. WERROR_FLAG is empty by default, but
> conta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86500
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86499
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86498
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84993
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86503
Bug ID: 86503
Summary: Segmentation fault signal terminated
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86502
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59480
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhonghao at pku dot org.cn
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86502
Bug ID: 86502
Summary: friend declaration specifying a default argument must
be a definition
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86501
Bug ID: 86501
Summary: shadow template parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86500
Bug ID: 86500
Summary: accepts-invalid with :: before decltype
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86499
Bug ID: 86499
Summary: lambda-expressions with capture-default are allowed at
namespace scope
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86498
Bug ID: 86498
Summary: g++ allows conversion from string literal to non-const
char* in C++11 mode
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7)
> It is to be consistent for common symbol linked against .a or .so.
That seems like a really strange reason because without --whole-archive there
are other ways to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86489
--- Comment #1 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry about the breakage, I am trying to reproduce it on x86-64. Please let me
know if you have testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86467
--- Comment #2 from Qing Zhao ---
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
> I think there's a duplicate report.
you mean another similar PR existing?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86491
--- Comment #6 from Jason Vas Dias ---
Thanks Andrew!
But, please explain, why does using a static reference cause
anonymous namespace issues ?
Where is this mandated in the C++ standards ?
I understand that any reference to a static object can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86453
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86497
Bug ID: 86497
Summary: Regression for x!=x
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86496
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86491
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #6)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5)
> > When ld sees a common symbol, it will use a non-common definiton
> > in a library, .a or .so, to override it.
>
> This is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86491
--- Comment #4 from Jason Vas Dias ---
Aha! It is simply that the object pointer template parameter cannot
have static (translation unit) linkage here:
namespace NA
{ class C { ... };
static C c_;
/*^^*/
}
If I remove the 's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86453
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
Okay, let me look into making the change.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86491
--- Comment #3 from Jason Vas Dias ---
Of course, these lines of t2.h from Comment #1 :
template < class _C_, _C_ *_C_OBJ_, void (_C_::*_M_)() >
class NT
{ static constexpr _C_ *c_ = _C_OBJ_;
public:
NT()
{ (c_->*_M_)();
could be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5)
> When ld sees a common symbol, it will use a non-common definiton
> in a library, .a or .so, to override it.
This is surprising, is it documented somewhere? I don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86386
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The A128 MEM is introduced during RA, *.ira still has:
(insn 26 24 28 2 (set (mem/c:QI (reg/f:DI 16 argp) [0 MEM[(char *
{ref-all})&m]+0 S1 A32])
(vec_select:QI (subreg:V16QI (reg:TI 88 [ _2 ]) 0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86386
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86453
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On July 11, 2018 8:30:43 PM GMT+02:00, "msebor at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86453
>
>--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
>Right. The exclusion logic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86485
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86496
Bug ID: 86496
Summary: [9 regression] plugin required to handle lto object
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86453
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Right. The exclusion logic doesn't depend on no_add_attr; it uses it for the
same purpose as attribute handlers do: to prevent the rest of the framework
from applying them. Maybe the exclusion should be done
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86485
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86453
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On July 11, 2018 8:12:17 PM GMT+02:00, "msebor at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86453
>
>--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
>The attribute exclusion fram
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86453
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
The attribute exclusion framework only excludes conflicting attributes if they
aren't applied by their handler. It doesn't know how to undo changes that the
handler makes, like modifying tree nodes in place.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #4)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> > It is because gold doesn't check archive for a common definition.
>
> Please elaborate - does ld.bfd try to extract stati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86492
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 44385
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44385&action=edit
gcc9-pr86492.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86495
Bug ID: 86495
Summary: false no return statement warning in "if constexpr"
branch
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54080
--- Comment #4 from nightstrike ---
This still crashes with gcc 8.1.1 20180531
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86492
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Related to PR84503.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> It is because gold doesn't check archive for a common definition.
Please elaborate - does ld.bfd try to extract static archive members when it
already has a common
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86494
Bug ID: 86494
Summary: Usage in unevaluated context causes compile time
errors because of implicit deletion
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86491
--- Comment #2 from Jason Vas Dias ---
Created attachment 44384
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44384&action=edit
More readable (diff -ur) patch against 6.4.1's cp/decl2.c
Here is a more readable version of the patch
to pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86493
Bug ID: 86493
Summary: [concepts] Hard error for "call to non-'constexpr'
function" in a requires expression
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86492
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #2)
> Note that Gold does not exhibit this issue. I think ld.bfd is at fault here.
It is because gold doesn't check archive for a common definition.
> We've hit similar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86491
--- Comment #1 from Jason Vas Dias ---
In investigating this problem, I actually modified 6.4.1's gcc/cp/decl2.c
with the following patch to print out which component of the
base struct it thinks uses the anonymous namespace:
BEGIN PATCH:
--- de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86492
Bug ID: 86492
Summary: [8/9 Regression] store-merging wrong-code
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86491
Bug ID: 86491
Summary: bogus and unsuppressible warning: 'YYY' has a base
'ZZZ' whose type uses the anonymous namespace
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80122
rpirrera at aitek dot it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
Bug ID: 86490
Summary: lto1: fatal error: multiple prevailing defs
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86489
Bug ID: 86489
Summary: ICE in gimple_phi_arg starting with r261682 when
building 531.deepsjeng_r with FDO + LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86480
--- Comment #2 from Guillaume Racicot ---
Yes of course! I only added the `-std=c++17` flag.
Here's a live example: https://godbolt.org/g/p8KLfE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67147
--- Comment #4 from Antony Polukhin ---
Shorter reproducer:
template concept bool fn = true;
template int test();
Above sample produces the following output:
:1:28: internal compiler error: in tsubst, at cp/pt.c:14368
template concept boo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86443
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jul 11 13:13:31 2018
New Revision: 262552
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262552&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/86443
* testsuite/libgomp.c++/for-15.C (a): Remove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86488
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias, missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86482
kkr at danfoss dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65862
--- Comment #15 from niva at niisi dot msk.ru ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #14)
> Author: vmakarov
> Date: Thu May 14 20:40:44 2015
> New Revision: 223202
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223202&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86452
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39230
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #0)
> Consider the following snippet:
>
> implicit none
> integer, pointer :: p
> print *,associated(p)
> end
>
> [...]
> Right now the above program simply prints
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39230
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #1)
> I think what you want is some -fcheck=pointer option (I think there is a PR
> about his). That option would initialize pointer with some bogus value, e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86488
Bug ID: 86488
Summary: malloc attribute when pointer is returned as part of a
struct
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86483
gnzlbg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86483
--- Comment #4 from gnzlbg ---
@Jonathan Wakely:
> If you tell the compiler the storage is smaller than 'usize' you're asking it
> to treat accesses past 'size' bytes as undefined behaviour (even though
> actually accesses up to usize are val
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86487
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.4.1
Version|un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69866
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|thopre01 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86487
Bug ID: 86487
Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] insn does not satisfy its
constraints on arm big-endian
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86463
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86259
--- Comment #20 from Davin McCall ---
(In reply to Davin McCall from comment #19)
> [...] If the result of offsetof has no provenance even the long form won't
> work.
"no provenance" meaning "empty provenance", and of course this is not actually
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86480
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.2
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85967
--- Comment #4 from Ladislav Michl ---
I do not have a copyright assignment in place with the FSF and I'm not even
author of that patch. Adhemerval Zanella did the work (thank you again) and I
added him to CC List. Patch itself needs improving as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86485
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.4
On 11.07.2018 11:46, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 10/07/18 18:53, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> On 10.07.2018 19:49, richard.earnshaw at arm dot com wrote:
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383
>>>
>>> --- Comment #7 from richard.earnshaw at arm dot com ---
>>> On 10/07/18 10:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86479
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
PR84873 was that, also manifesting itself in
fold_binary_op_with_conditional_arg
(but not a trapping but tree sharing issue).
Testing a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86463
--- Comment #4 from Rob Farmer ---
gfortran -ggdb -O1 -fno-var-tracking -c largeFile.f90 0m2.628s
gfortran -ggdb -O2 -fno-var-tracking -c largeFile.f90 0m4.262s
gfortran -ggdb -O3 -fno-var-tracking -c largeFile.f90 0m21.706s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86463
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018, robert.j.farmer37 at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86463
>
> --- Comment #2 from Rob Farmer ---
>
> gfortran -ggdb -fno-var-tracking -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86259
Davin McCall changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davmac at davmac dot org
--- Comment #19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85854
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86486
Bug ID: 86486
Summary: GCC 8 stack clash protection on AArch64 is incomplete
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86486
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86465
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Possibly related to PR 86485 (just a guess, I haven't investigated).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86209
sameerad at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |sameerad at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86209
--- Comment #13 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Sameera,
If you are working on this , can you please assign this to yourself ?
Ramana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86485
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86209
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86479
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409
Thomas Otto changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thomas.o...@pdv-fs.de
--- Comment #30 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86485
Bug ID: 86485
Summary: [ 7 regression] "anonymous" maybe-uninitialized false
positive with ternary operator
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86483
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #3 from Jonath
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86463
--- Comment #2 from Rob Farmer ---
gfortran -ggdb -fno-var-tracking -c largeFile.f90 0m0.358s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86473
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 86474 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86474
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86471
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86469
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383
--- Comment #8 from richard.earnshaw at arm dot com ---
On 10/07/18 18:53, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> On 10.07.2018 19:49, richard.earnshaw at arm dot com wrote:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383
>>
>> --- Comment #7 from richar
On 10/07/18 18:53, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> On 10.07.2018 19:49, richard.earnshaw at arm dot com wrote:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383
>>
>> --- Comment #7 from richard.earnshaw at arm dot com ---
>> On 10/07/18 10:57, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>> On 06.07.2018 15:26, Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86468
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86467
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #1 from
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
