https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69896
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69895
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69894
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69892
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69889
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69900
Bug ID: 69900
Summary: [6 Regression] Unhelpful diagnostic about Ignored
options
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69885
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69900
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69884
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69882
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69876
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69715
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 22 Feb 2016, kip at thevertigo dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69715
>
> --- Comment #15 from Kip Warner ---
> Thank you for your hard work, Richard. It's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69894
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69889
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69886
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69887
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69887
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #63 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #59)
> > We already warn about mismatches sizes at LTO link time
>
> Confirmed
>
> [Book15] f90/bug% gfc -c -O2 pr69368_a.f90 -flto
> [Book15] f90/bug% gfc -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37448
--- Comment #54 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Feb 22 09:32:35 2016
New Revision: 233598
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233598&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-22 Richard Biener
PR ipa/37448
* ipa-inlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37448
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #64 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #61)
> Another oddity of the "optimization" introduced by r232508 is the following
> test (borrowed from https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01356.ht
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47344
Bug 47344 depends on bug 37448, which changed state.
Bug 37448 Summary: cannot compile big function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37448
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69874
--- Comment #8 from maysam.kind at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #7)
> Will do. But lets reopen this bug for the original issue.
Thanks for the prompt responses.
Is there anything that you require from me?
Can yo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69888
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69874
--- Comment #9 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to maysam.kind from comment #8)
> (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #7)
> > Will do. But lets reopen this bug for the original issue.
>
> Thanks for the prompt responses.
> Is the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69224
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #65 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> There is obviously no "rationale". Fact is that we don't exploit the
> undefinedness explicitely but just as a side-effect of how CSE works in
> DOM now. This means we don't propagate '1' as the o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69901
Bug ID: 69901
Summary: Iniitializing non-const global array variable from
runtime const global variable does not copy all values
properly
Product: gcc
Version: un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69902
Bug ID: 69902
Summary: Bogus -Wnonnull-compare for: dynamic_cast(&ref) ==
nullptr
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66408
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||baradi09 at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63232
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68241
Bug 68241 depends on bug 63232, which changed state.
Bug 63232 Summary: Deferred length character field of derived type looses its
value when used in subroutine call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63232
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #66 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #65)
> > There is obviously no "rationale". Fact is that we don't exploit the
> > undefinedness explicitely but just as a side-effect of how CSE works in
> > D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #67 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > How can K(1) and K(2*1) be the same without using undefinedness explicitely?
> They can't, but why does that matter for undefined behavior?
> The CSE code in DOM doesn't try to analyze the array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69885
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69885
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69888
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Untested fix.
Looks OK, but please introduce a temporary variable, something like:
--cut here--
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69882
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
The IL you refer to makes sense to me, the vectorizer sees
t.f90:13:0: note: Final SLP tree for instance:
t.f90:13:0: note: node
t.f90:13:0: note: stmt 0 M.0_140 = MAX_EXPR <_139, c_I_lsm.10_129>;
t.f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69882
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 37752
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37752&action=edit
simplified testacse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69888
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
>
> > Untested fix.
> Looks OK, but please introduce a temporary variable, something like:
>
> + HOST_WIDE_INT new_s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69902
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69882
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, I think what goes wrong is
t.f90:13:0: note: Detected interleaving load *a_19(D)[_54] and *a_19(D)[_18]
t.f90:13:0: note: Detected interleaving load of size 4 starting with _55 =
*a_19(D)[_54];
t.f90:13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69810
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It also happens with 4.8, which does not have the EXTQI patch yet, and
not the WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS either. It wasn't hidden, just no one
ever noticed :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69881
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #13)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #12)
> > (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #9)
> > > right now I am trying to boot-strap this:
> > >
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69900
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69886
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68963
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69881
--- Comment #19 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #18)
> > Yes, I do have such targets.
> > We use eCos at Softing as real time O/S a lot.
>
> Great, that's good to know.
>
> > I think I will build an ecos cross c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69224
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, so we have
for (int j = 0; j < s->d - 1; j++) {
if ((c[i] >= s->x[j]) && (c[i] <= s->x[j + 1])) {
b[2*j][i] = s->x[j];
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69881
--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #19)
> But I am sure that #define __need_offsetof can simply not work.
So don't define that. It's undefined behaviour.
> I am not sure if it can compile at all, b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51996
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47562
Bug 47562 depends on bug 51980, which changed state.
Bug 51980 Summary: ARM - Neon code polluted by useless stores to the stack with
vuzpq / vzipq / vtrnq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51980
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51980
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69902
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69885
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose ---
this fixes the bootstrap, tested with a cross build.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69881
--- Comment #21 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #20)
> (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #19)
> > But I am sure that #define __need_offsetof can simply not work.
>
> So don't define that. It's undefined b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69895
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose ---
the patch installs the m68k files.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51765
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Loads of -flto ICEs left:
FAIL: g++.dg/cpp1y/var-templ16.C -std=c++14 (internal compiler error)
FAIL: g++.dg/cpp1y/var-templ16.C -std=c++14 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/cpp1y/var-templ27.C -std=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51765
Bug 51765 depends on bug 52651, which changed state.
Bug 52651 Summary: Fortran testsuite ICEs with -flto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52651
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52651
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #44 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Mon Feb 22 13:33:31 2016
New Revision: 233601
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233601&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/69806
PR target/54089
* config/sh/s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69806
--- Comment #11 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Mon Feb 22 13:33:31 2016
New Revision: 233601
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233601&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/69806
PR target/54089
* config/sh/s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69896
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69810
--- Comment #6 from David Edelsohn ---
The bug definitely predated the EXTQI change. It was introduced when Red Hat
added the splitters for non-cr0 compares.
EXTQI is used for plain zero_extendqi2 and extendqi2.
zero_extendqihi2 and extendqihi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55190
--- Comment #9 from Oleg Endo ---
As of r233601 the issue still persists.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69885
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 22 14:22:07 2016
New Revision: 233603
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233603&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/69885
* config/m68k/m68k.md (ashldi3, ashrdi3, l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69885
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69810
--- Comment #7 from David Edelsohn ---
Created attachment 37755
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37755&action=edit
extqihi patch
Because this idiom occurs so rarely (like never, except for an artificial
csmith testcase :-), t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69903
Bug ID: 69903
Summary: Function template specialization with CRTP-class
causes compiler segfault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69882
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Feb 22 14:53:17 2016
New Revision: 233605
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233605&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-22 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/69882
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69882
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69760
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69893
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The problem is in TR1, which parallel mode uses:
#include
#include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69893
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And this already failed with GCC 5 and -std=c++11
#include
using std::acosh;
#include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69903
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69098
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Is this fixed now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69903
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
More complete stack trace:
ice.c:7:23: internal compiler error: in add_stmt, at cp/semantics.c:385
volatile int x = i;
^
0x772687 add_stmt(tree_node*)
$TOP/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69879
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69098
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69903
--- Comment #3 from Alexander ---
NOTE:
Functions' interior isn't important here, they can be empty, I used volatile
variables just to check assembler output.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69903
--- Comment #4 from Alexander ---
About versions:
this code didn't crash until 4.7.3 version, I checked it with
http://gcc.godbolt.org/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69896
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69904
Bug ID: 69904
Summary: [6 Regression] shrink-wrapping creates weird atomic
compare exchange loop on arm
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69881
--- Comment #22 from Bernd Edlinger ---
yes, I would really have liked the warning, but...
/../gcc-trunk/gcc/../libdecnumber/bid -I../libdecnumber
-I../../gcc-trunk/gcc/../libbacktrace -I/home/ed/gnu/gcc-build/./isl/include
-I/home/ed/gnu/gcc-tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69810
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69902
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69842
Philipp changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
--- Comment #68 from Thomas Koenig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69126
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69841
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33562
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P4
--- Comment #23 from Jeffrey A. Law
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69898
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69887
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69898
--- Comment #2 from wander ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #1)
> I would argue that the code should be ill-formed, because the attempt to
> form a pointer to a function with cv-qualifier-seq is invalid, see
>
> http://www.open-std.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69868
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 37759
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37759&action=edit
Tentative patch (needs refactoring)
Attaching a tested patch that solves the problem for this case without
regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69895
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 22 19:55:47 2016
New Revision: 233611
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233611&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/69894
PR target/69895
* config/m68k/t-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69894
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 22 19:55:47 2016
New Revision: 233611
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233611&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/69894
PR target/69895
* config/m68k/t-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69894
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69895
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69905
Bug ID: 69905
Summary: Digit separators break literal operators
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
