https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64777
Damian Rouson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||damian at sourceryinstitute
dot or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89840
Bug ID: 89840
Summary: [Coarray] CO_BROADCAST: Missing
finalization/deallocation of allocatable components
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57021
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89839
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
See also PR 35895
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79425
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Marina Minkin from comment #3)
> What do you mean by "You need to set the section to verify correct in top
> level inline-asm and then"?
.text
...
.previous
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79425
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89839
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89834
--- Comment #5 from bin cheng ---
Thanks very much for reporting and fixing the issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89839
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89839
Bug ID: 89839
Summary: section not reset to text for top level asm
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: inl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89838
Bug ID: 89838
Summary: [ARC] ICE building glibc testsuite
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89834
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Thanks, I verified that the vectorization depends on vectorizing an unaligned
access, so I believe this is the correct fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410
--- Comment #34 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Vittorio Zecca from comment #2)
> The following produces a Segmentation fault in gfc_conv_structure (r178925)
>
> type t
>integer g
> end type
> type(t) :: u=t(1)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89834
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
For the original test case, send me the results of -ftree-dump-vect-details for
P8 BE and I can verify whether this looks like the right fix. Would like to
get signoff from Bin on that as well, of course, as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89834
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I added
/* { dg-require-effective-target vect_hw_misalign } */
to the test and it comes out now as not supported on power 7 and thus does not
fail. Note that I only tried this there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87891
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89834
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
I'd guess it has to do with the fact that P7 doesn't have efficient unaligned
load/store support. Try adding vect_hw_misalign to the requirements?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89837
Bug ID: 89837
Summary: __builtin_longjmp failure with instruction scheduling
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89836
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89836
Bug ID: 89836
Summary: converted constant expression of type bool and
explicit conversion functions
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89835
Andrew Waterman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrew at sifive dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89835
Bug ID: 89835
Summary: The RISC-V target uses amoswap.w for relaxed stores
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89821
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 06:34:09PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> This reduced testcase fails with 8-branch and trunk when compiled
> with -ffpe-trap=invalid.
>
> program demo_nan
>use,intrins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89785
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89830
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 06:32:21PM +, zbeekman at gmail dot com wrote:
> Also, given that my reproducer code was dumb, should we close this an open a
> new issue to track the paths getting embedded? Or sho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89829
--- Comment #2 from Serge Belyshev ---
On the other hand, benchmarking shows that better training brings no advantage.
Or rather, slight measurable regression is apparent:
option| training dataset| benchmark | compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89834
Bug ID: 89834
Summary: New test case gcc.dg/vect/pr81740-2.c introduced in
r269938 fails on power 7
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89827
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Mar 26 18:59:14 2019
New Revision: 269953
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269953&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/89827
* config/i386/i386.c (dimode_scala
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89821
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89821
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89830
--- Comment #5 from Zaak ---
Sorry about the bad reproducer code (name conflict).
To create reproducible builds one must be able to strip or at least map source
file references from the source/build directory to something more generic or
univers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89421
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
> Jason, should we also return NULL_TREE for lambdas inside template parameter
> list (in retrieve_specialization)?
That's not sufficient, even if it probably make
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89833
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89830
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 05:59:08PM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
> (In reply to Zaak from comment #0)
>
> > Furthermore, there is an error message embedde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89833
Bug ID: 89833
Summary: [9 Regression] sorry, unimplemented: string literal in
function template signature
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89830
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89785
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Another option, slightly more involved, is say cp_walk_tree on
> SWITCH_STMT_BODY, looking for any RETURN_EXPRs or CONTINUE_STMTs (the latter
> only when not nest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89832
Bug ID: 89832
Summary: confusing error message when there is a problem with
ASAN_OPTIONS "ERROR: expected '='"
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89831
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89830
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Zaak from comment #0)
> When compiled, even with the `-fno-working-directory` flag, the object file
> still contains references to the full path to the source file:
>
> ```
> $ strin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30810
Serge Belyshev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89830
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89499
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89831
Bug ID: 89831
Summary: passing 'const ...' as 'this' argument discards
qualifiers
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38177
Serge Belyshev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86932
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 82643, which changed state.
Bug 82643 Summary: lambda capture breaks constexpr-ness of non-static const
constexpr member call on non-constexpr value/variable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82643
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82643
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87327
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] Calling|[8 Regression] Calling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86429
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] lambda |[8 Regression] lambda
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87327
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Mar 26 16:02:19 2019
New Revision: 269951
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269951&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/86429 - constexpr variable in lambda.
When we refer to a c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86429
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Mar 26 16:02:19 2019
New Revision: 269951
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269951&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/86429 - constexpr variable in lambda.
When we refer to a c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82643
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Mar 26 16:02:19 2019
New Revision: 269951
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269951&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/86429 - constexpr variable in lambda.
When we refer to a c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89830
Bug ID: 89830
Summary: intrinsic repeat() is completely broken
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48101
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Mar 26 15:28:48 2019
New Revision: 269949
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269949&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/85965 delay static assertions until types are complete
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85965
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Mar 26 15:28:48 2019
New Revision: 269949
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269949&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/85965 delay static assertions until types are complete
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89812
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89733
--- Comment #6 from Nikita Kniazev ---
I understand. I though that -Wuninitialized should not produce false positives
and that's a main difference between it and -Wno-maybe-uninitialized.
The warning does not go away and does not change to -Wno-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89829
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89826
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89826
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yes, started with r269896:
+deferring deletion of insn with uid = 50.
+deferring rescan insn with uid = 54.
insn 55: replaced reg 3 with 0
+deferring rescan insn with uid = 55.
+deferring rescan insn with ui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89826
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89733
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The warning triggers when the warning pass sees uninitialized uses in the IL
(and quite complex code doesn't prove that it is not actually impossible at
runtime (predicate aware analysis).
You are using -O1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89825
--- Comment #5 from ville at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ville
Date: Tue Mar 26 15:00:05 2019
New Revision: 269947
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269947&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/89825
Fix based on a suggestion by Antony Polukhin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89733
--- Comment #4 from Nikita Kniazev ---
So the warning triggers intentionally in copy/move even if the value actually
not read anywhere in the user code?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81757
Patrick Moran changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89829
Bug ID: 89829
Summary: incorrect profile data is used during
profiledbootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89825
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89827
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
We need something like this patch:
--cut here--
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
index b5f20f1597ed..3ea545732dfd 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
@@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89826
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milesto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89827
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84201
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> For some reason, I can't reproduce that now on Haswell with both GCC 8 and
> 9. I'll retry with a Zen machine.
The reason is that I had adjusted tolerance for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88389
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||antonio.di.monaco at sap dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88386
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89223
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89733
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89253
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 26 13:18:23 2019
New Revision: 269942
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269942&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-02-26 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
--- Comment #61 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 26 13:18:23 2019
New Revision: 269942
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269942&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-02-26 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89223
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 26 13:18:23 2019
New Revision: 269942
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269942&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-02-26 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89828
Bug ID: 89828
Summary: Inernal compiler error on -fno-omit-frame-pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89812
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89827
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59528
Serge Belyshev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89824
--- Comment #1 from ville at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ville
Date: Tue Mar 26 12:41:59 2019
New Revision: 269941
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269941&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/89824
Fix based on a suggestion by Antony Polukhin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89825
--- Comment #4 from Antony Polukhin ---
> Would you be willing to complete a copyright assignment for contributions to
> GCC?
Yes, I can do that. Please send the instructions to my email.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89825
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> Would you be willing to complete a copyright assignment for contributions to
> GCC?
And then ideally, make lots more contributions :-)
gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-269932-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-i686
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.1 20190326 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89825
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
d model: posix
gcc version 9.0.1 20190326 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89816
--- Comment #11 from ville at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ville
Date: Tue Mar 26 12:07:26 2019
New Revision: 269940
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269940&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/89816
Fix based on a suggestion by Antony Polukhi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82501
--- Comment #30 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrey Drobyshev from comment #26)
> > I would like to ask, has the idea of adding an artificial object linked with
> > -fsanitize=address early on the link line which would register artificial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61448
Serge Belyshev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84201
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84552
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86554
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86554
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 26 11:18:26 2019
New Revision: 269939
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269939&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-26 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88240
Bug 88240 depends on bug 86554, which changed state.
Bug 86554 Summary: [7 Regression] Incorrect code generation with
signed/unsigned comparison
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86554
What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84552
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 26 11:18:26 2019
New Revision: 269939
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269939&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-26 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88105
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 26 11:18:26 2019
New Revision: 269939
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269939&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-26 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
