https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81602
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116378
Bug ID: 116378
Summary: [15 Regression] M2 bootstrap fails on x86_64-darwin
after r15-2876
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109955
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97786
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by HaoChen Gui :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:08108d57246210de7d5a00b1967dab7102d356bc
commit r15-2927-g08108d57246210de7d5a00b1967dab7102d356bc
Author: Haochen Gui
Date: Thu Au
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97786
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by HaoChen Gui :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:44eb45c2ef7192eb6a811fd46fcb2c7fbeb6f865
commit r15-2926-g44eb45c2ef7192eb6a811fd46fcb2c7fbeb6f865
Author: Haochen Gui
Date: Thu Au
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97786
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by HaoChen Gui :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:53945be1efb502f235d84ff67ceafe4a764b6e1c
commit r15-2925-g53945be1efb502f235d84ff67ceafe4a764b6e1c
Author: Haochen Gui
Date: Thu Au
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81602
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Interesting clang does:
```
movzx ecx, word ptr [rdi + 2*rax]
popcnt ecx, ecx
lea rsi, [rsi + 2*rcx]
```
While GCC 14+ does:
```
xor eax, eax
add rdi,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113600
--- Comment #10 from Hongtao Liu ---
I think it should be fixed by r15-2820-gab18785840d7b8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115749
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116357
--- Comment #4 from Alwin Zhang ---
Hello experts,
What do you think about the fact that it only happens when using -O1/2/3?
It seems like the other issues linked have nothing to do with that fact.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115749
Bug 115749 depends on bug 115756, which changed state.
Bug 115756 Summary: default tuning for x86_64 produces shifts for `*240`
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115756
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115756
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116174
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114678
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by HaoChen Gui :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cd0930768ff936b681135bf8873e7f7b796a4ed9
commit r15-2922-gcd0930768ff936b681135bf8873e7f7b796a4ed9
Author: Haochen Gui
Date: Thu A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116377
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
gimple-ssa-warn-restrict.cc: "%qD source argument is the same
as destination",
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116377
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Most likely because the warning happens after recusive inlining rather than
before inlining.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116377
--- Comment #2 from Peter Damianov ---
I know the testcase contains infinite recursion, what I was reporting was the
warning about the strncpy repeating multiple times, with progressively more
"inlined from" notes.
I couldn't find a way to cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116377
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
gimple-warn-recursion.cc: "infinite recursion detected"))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116377
Bug ID: 116377
Summary: Warnings emit repeatedly when inlining occurs
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115657
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116221
--- Comment #12 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #10)
> /var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-15.0./work/gcc-15.0./gcc/fortran/
> interface.cc: In function ‘gfc_get_formal_from_actual_arglist’:
> /var/tmp/po
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116221
--- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #9)
> A handful more:
> ```
> In function ‘gfc_restore_backend_locus’,
> inlined from ‘gfc_trans_if_1’ at
> /var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-15.0./work/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116015
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Fixed on trunk so far. I think it makes sense to fix this in 14 too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116015
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d91b6c93f98cac71f5588d73191d08ad788e600c
commit r15-2920-gd91b6c93f98cac71f5588d73191d08ad788e600c
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116333
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Pali Rohár from comment #3)
> > Hello Andrew, have you checked if this is really duplicate?
>
> That is a different issue all together. The origina
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116333
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Pali Rohár from comment #3)
> Hello Andrew, have you checked if this is really duplicate?
That is a different issue all together. The original issue is definitely a dup.
The secondary issue loo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116333
--- Comment #3 from Pali Rohár ---
Hello Andrew, have you checked if this is really duplicate?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115444
Alfredo Correa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alfredo.correa at gmail dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109329
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116373
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116373
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116374
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116375
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2024-08-14 00:00:00 |
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116375
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109329
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-08-14
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116374
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/20050122-2.c -O1 (internal compiler error: in
update_reg_eliminate, at lra-eliminations.cc:1215)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102217
--- Comment #10 from Arsen Arsenović ---
(In reply to John Eivind Helset from comment #9)
> Hit this as well on master (9d5c500c4fa) in something like `co_return
> co_await f(a, b ? c : d);`, if I lift the conditional out of await it seems
> ok.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115859
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116376
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
What is done for x86_64-mingw is call __main from main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115859
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arsen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116374
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116376
Radek Barton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106658
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116155
Dimitar Dimitrov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #16 from Dimitar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116376
--- Comment #2 from Radek Barton ---
OK, thanks for the insights, let me investigate further what is going on...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116376
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112918
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116376
Bug ID: 116376
Summary: `genpreds` segmentation fault caused by dereferencing
null pointer in `gcc/hash_table.h`
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116369
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116375
Bug ID: 116375
Summary: redundant copy not eliminated with CONSTRUCTOR
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116203
--- Comment #8 from rudi at heitbaum dot com ---
Hi Andrew, I can confirm this is now fixed with kernel 6.11-rc3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116374
Bug ID: 116374
Summary: [LRA] [M68K] Wrong %argptr elimination
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116373
--- Comment #2 from Andrei Horodniceanu ---
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #1)
> Upstream fix.
>
> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/16408
Oh, I didn't think to look upstream because the code compiled fine with dmd.
The example code in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116361
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116373
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://issues.dlang.org/sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116369
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116373
Bug ID: 116373
Summary: [14/15 regression] ICE in dmd.expressionsem.resolveLoc
since f204359931866b917856fc959c70dbf55f28c14d
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114076
--- Comment #4 from Benjamin Buch ---
I just tried the Compiler Explorer links from my overview and saw that there is
no change in the trunk for GCC.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/78101462/4821621
The fact that all three major compilers behave d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116372
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Not that this means much, but as a note for Manolis et. al: Ada bootstraps OK
on amd64 (znver2). But I don't do all-FE builds in many places.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113035
--- Comment #3 from Dusan Stojkovic ---
Upon further investigation into the bug related to the vsetvl-*.c tests
(specifically vsetvl-13.c, vsetvl-15.c, and vsetvl-23.c), we found the
following:
When using the mtune=sifive-7-series tuning, tests
/devel/src/gcc/ada/spark_xrefs.adb -o
ada/spark_xrefs.o
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 15.0.0 20240814 (experimental) (s390x-ibm-linux-gnu) GCC error: |
| in gnat_to_gnu, at ada/gcc-interface/trans.cc:6423 |
| Error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116361
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116361
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
The BFD linker checks if a symbol in archive member is real definition, not
common,
before including the archive member in the link output so that a real
definition in
archive member can override the common symbol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116361
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
See Also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115295
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #8)
> It looks like pinskia reviewed it and then aoliva respun it at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/654286.html.
It fixes a bunch of issues for me with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104050
--- Comment #8 from Arsen Arsenović ---
possibly related to PR c++/101118 (and notably the fix for it)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104050
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arsen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113729
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116371
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rsandifo at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116371
Bug ID: 116371
Summary: The SME2 svpext intrinsics are missing a _lane suffix
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106438
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-08-14
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116370
Bug ID: 116370
Summary: UBSAN issue in fortran/trans-expr.cc in
arrayfunc_assign_needs_temporary - enum value out of
range
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #169 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #168)
> I am getting a segmentation fault when building libgcc2.c now:
>
> /<>/build/./gcc/xgcc -B/<>/build/./gcc/
> -B/usr/sh4-linux-gnu/bin/ -B/usr/s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109329
--- Comment #1 from Jeevitha ---
This test case requires a Power7 or above due to the ieeelongdouble ABI. The
test case includes "ppc_float128_sw", but this is not helpful. We can use the
target check "ppc_ieee128_ok" to verify IEEE support.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113729
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kong Lingling :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:edb2712936368e803fd67aa520323054b2a5c5e7
commit r15-2916-gedb2712936368e803fd67aa520323054b2a5c5e7
Author: Lingling Kong
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113729
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kong Lingling :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d08a5f211135374b3ad700780c46a198cd320328
commit r15-2915-gd08a5f211135374b3ad700780c46a198cd320328
Author: Lingling Kong
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113729
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kong Lingling :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a302cd6abbeccc93784b7ecc86f2e9106aa412ca
commit r15-2913-ga302cd6abbeccc93784b7ecc86f2e9106aa412ca
Author: Lingling Kong
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113729
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kong Lingling :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1b761744dc3ea6f3d66a9c48f16719ad1c92d5ad
commit r15-2914-g1b761744dc3ea6f3d66a9c48f16719ad1c92d5ad
Author: Lingling Kong
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116369
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Run test:
```
struct f{
mutable int t;
};
const f &g = {1};
int main()
{
g.t++;
}
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116369
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |c++
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116369
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The difference between the two versions (and even the difference between the
refernece and non reference) is the underlying variable for a1234 is in the
rodata section for the one with the temporary bounded
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116369
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
It worked with `14.0.0 20231109`
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116236
--- Comment #20 from Andreas Schwab ---
With that patch I can successfully build the C++ target libraries with LRA
enabled.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77871
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116369
--- Comment #1 from Piotr Nycz ---
(In reply to Piotr Nycz from comment #0)
> Starting from C++20 (C++23 too) and gcc14.1, with STL debug mode ON
> (-std=c++20 -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG) the following code starts producing SIGSEGV:
>
> #include
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116369
Bug ID: 116369
Summary: [DEBUG MODE,C++20] access to iterators from global
empty container defined by "const&" results in SIGSEGV
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87477
Bug 87477 depends on bug 102973, which changed state.
Bug 102973 Summary: possible inconsistency in procptr_assignment handling when
matching ASSOCIATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102973
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102973
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102973
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andre Vehreschild :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:54be14bfd6e2dee7cb4e1b3c20dc2677093ee818
commit r15-2911-g54be14bfd6e2dee7cb4e1b3c20dc2677093ee818
Author: Andre Vehreschild
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116366
--- Comment #4 from Yi Qingliang ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Note it is unrelated to member objects too as shown by:
> ```
>
> template
> auto declval() -> T&;
>
> static int x;
>
> template
> using mem_type = decltype(*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116366
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note it is unrelated to member objects too as shown by:
```
template
auto declval() -> T&;
static int x;
template
using mem_type = decltype(*M);
template>
void set_mem(const T& v)
{
*M = v;
}
st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116366
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Interesting EDG and MSVC both accept it though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116366
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is just a diagnostic error.
clang produces:
```
:17:28: error: address of overloaded function 'set_mem' does not match
required type 'void (int &)'
17 | static constexpr auto p = &test::set
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116368
--- Comment #2 from delacroix777 at proton dot me ---
So you've known about the existence of this bug for 7 years now, but still no
fix?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116292
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79624
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79009
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||haining.cpp at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116368
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79009
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||delacroix777 at proton dot me
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116292
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andre Vehreschild :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bb2324769c5a03e275de00416659e624c97f1442
commit r15-2910-gbb2324769c5a03e275de00416659e624c97f1442
Author: Andre Vehreschild
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
