https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109345
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109345
--- Comment #14 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #13)
> I have had a period of not being able to work on gfortran. I'll take a look
> at this today.
Some other patch has been applied to 14-branch onwards that results
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109345
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106035
--- Comment #12 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #11)
> (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #9)
> > Created attachment 61467 [details]
> > Test vehicle for my f2018 import patch
> >
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > Note the section
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106035
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 61467
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61467&action=edit
Test vehicle for my f2018 import patch
Hi Steve,
Note the sections marked WRINKLE. ifx considers an associate b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106035
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103312
--- Comment #16 from Paul Thomas ---
> Hi Paul, I did not realize that you were working on import.
> Are you aware of
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106035
Hi Steve,
No, I wasn't aware of this PR but should have been. I wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103312
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119948
--- Comment #17 from Paul Thomas ---
Comment on attachment 61202
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61202
fix the issues
Hi Steve,
I got to thinking for once. I think that your change to primary.cc has cast the
net a bit too
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119948
--- Comment #15 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #14)
> HI Paul,
>
> The difference in my pr119948_1.f90 and pr119948_2.f90 is
> that the former is Damian's testcase with a result-name
> while latter does not use result-nam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119948
--- Comment #11 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #10)
> The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
I will close as fixed if no appetite for backporting is expressed in the next
week.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119948
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #8)
> Occam's razor suggests we go with Paul's patch. Paul, do you want to handle
> the commit-ish work or I can do it for you. Just let me know.
I'll do the commit lat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119948
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #5)
> Created attachment 61214 [details]
> Yet another fix for this PR
>
> I don't quite know whose patch is purer. This one also regtests OK.
>
> I will think about it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119948
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119836
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101047
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 61121
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61121&action=edit
An update of Jose's patch
The attached is an updated version of Jose's that applies to the current trunk.
I am e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110626
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #3)
> Hello Javier,
>
> For some reason this bug slipped by me. I do apologise.
>
> I can confirm that there is a bug, which comes about from the use of a
> temporary fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100821
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100819
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100818
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Resoluti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100816
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100120
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119540
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119540
Bug 119540 depends on bug 119460, which changed state.
Bug 119460 Summary: gfortran.dg/reduce_1.f90 FAILs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119460
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119460
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119460
--- Comment #20 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #19)
>
> ! { dg-require-effective-target fortran_real_16 }
>
> in order to prevent new issues popping up... ;-)
I decided to go for real_8 with twice the extent of the 'fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119460
--- Comment #18 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #17)
> Created attachment 61014 [details]
> Enhanced version of reduce_4.f90
>
> This fixes also a copy&paste of a subtest and tests the maximum symbol
> length of the wrappe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119540
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119460
--- Comment #14 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 61006
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61006&action=edit
Fix for this PR
I believe that this fixes most, if not all, of the problems with the reduce
intrinsic. I will b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119460
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119460
--- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas ---
Thanks for all your investigations into this and pr119540. Compiling with -m32
to trigger the bug was something that I should have thought of myself :-(
Thanks!
> Why is dim /= NULL?
I don't know. I have tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119460
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #3)
> > --- Comment #1 from Paul Thomas ---
> > This bug is due to wrong casting of 'dim'. It was caught prior to committing
> > but I screwed up by onl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119460
--- Comment #1 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
> The new gfortran.dg/reduce_1.f90 test FAILs on Solaris/SPARC and x86, both 32
> and 64-bit:
>
> +FAIL: gfortran.dg/reduce_1.f90 -O0 execution test
> +FAIL: gfort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119460
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115265
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
> > Great, thanks for adding this testcase. Is there any change the fix in
> > PR109066 will be applied to older branches, e.g. 13 and 14?
Neither PR is a regression and defined assignment is so fundamentall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108434
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117730
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116078
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Filip Kastl from comment #8)
> Hmm, reverting the commit in question on the current trunk to see if it
> still causes a slowdown doesn't work.
I would have been very surprised if that patch had c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88688
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #5)
> (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #4)
> > Fixed on trunk and closing.
>
> I guess you didn't actually close - happens to me quite often, as well :-)
Thanks, T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100155
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118750
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116829
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #5)
> The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:251aa524a314faa749b7dd1b7da048e6e6476015
>
> commit r15-7412-g251aa524a314faa749b7dd1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118750
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60396|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118750
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102333
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #8)
> Created attachment 60290 [details]
> Testcase for this PR
>
> This PR seems to have been fixed in the recent past on both 14- and
> 15-branches.
>
> I will push th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115265
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Matthew Krupcale from comment #3)
> Hey Paul,
>
> Great, thanks for adding this testcase. Is there any change the fix in
> PR109066 will be applied to older branches, e.g. 13 and 14?
>
> Matthew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102333
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115265
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115265
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118640
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96087
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118640
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Last re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
--- Comment #24 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #23)
> The new testcase FAILs on the gcc-12 branch (it works on the 13 branch) on
> x86_64-linux:
>
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr117763.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times origi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103391
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104130
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105152
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
Well, "a few weeks" turned into rather longer than that. Apologies.
Now fixed on 13-branch. This also fixes pr104130 by the way.
Thanks
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108434
--- Comment #13 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 60052
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60052&action=edit
Fix for this PR
Hi Harald,
This version gets rid of the invalid reads. Originally it lost extra memory:
defini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106692
--- Comment #20 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #19)
> Fixed on mainline so far.
>
> Will wait some time before considering backports.
Hi Harald,
In spite of my nervousness about the patch, I wouldn't wait very long to
b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105168
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106692
--- Comment #14 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #12)
> This very local, hackish patch marks the Cray pointers as volatile only
> for comparisons, fixes the testcase and does not regress with the analyzer
> testcases. Not t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106692
--- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #9)
.
o we want to fix this, given Jakub and Tobias's remarks?
>
> I have no stock in Cray pointers. If there were a simple fix, then we
> just do it. But the above doe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106692
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116254
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 118059, which changed state.
Bug 118059 Summary: [15 Regression] ubsan instrumented gcc: valid value for
type 'expr_t' in gcc/fortran/trans-expr.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118059
What|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118059
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117797
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118059
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116254
--- Comment #14 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 59939
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59939&action=edit
Fix for this PR
(In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #10)
Hi Richard,
The temporary array descriptor is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116254
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117897
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116254
--- Comment #11 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #10)
> A bit more info: valgrind succeeds for -O0. But with optimisation enabled
> (-O is enough), it flags:
>
> ==12989== Conditional jump or move depends on uni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110626
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84674
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117897
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14/15 Regression] Bug |[13/14 Regression] Bug in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117897
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 59868
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59868&action=edit
Fix for this PR
It needs tidying up and the testcase dejagnu-ifying but it does regtest OK.
I didn't realise th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117897
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117897
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117901
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117797
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14/15 Regression] ICE |[13/14 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84245
--- Comment #14 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #13)
> (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #12)
> > Created attachment 59753 [details]
> > Fix for this PR
> >
> > Testcase. Regressions tests OK. Will submit when my tree i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102689
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 59839
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59839&action=edit
Instrumtented class_transformational_2.f90
Hi Christophe,
Would you be so kind as to try compiling and running
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117901
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 59826
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59826&action=edit
Fix for this PR
Found it :-)
It's just now regression testing.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117901
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116261
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117901
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #4)
...snip...
> I will now clean up the patch and produce a suitably reduced testcase that
> isolates the problem.
>
> Paul
This was my attempt at a testcase, which is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117901
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
I held off pushing because I had the scent of the problem. The "fix" of comment
#3 was a dead giveaway. It turns out to be nothing to do with my fix for 102689
but is a latent bug exposed by the testcase. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116261
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116261
--- Comment #13 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 59790
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59790&action=edit
Fix for this PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117901
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117901
Bug ID: 117901
Summary: class_transformational_1.f90 with -O3 and
-fcheck=bounds gives ICE in make_ssa_name_fn
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117797
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84245
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105054
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78492
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29670
Bug 29670 depends on bug 78492, which changed state.
Bug 78492 Summary: [OOP] Compiler segfault with non_overridable function in
generic interface
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78492
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117768
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117768
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #5)
> Created attachment 59711 [details]
> Fix for this PR
Hi Juergen,
Are you in a position to check this patch? I am submitting to the list in a few
minutes but would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117768
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
--- Comment #18 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #17)
> Thanks a lot, Paul!!! This also needs to be backported to the 14 branch,
> right?
Yes, it does. I am tied up with daytime work right now but will attend to it
1 - 100 of 707 matches
Mail list logo
