https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69687
--- Comment #9 from Marcel Böhme ---
Created attachment 37839
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37839&action=edit
Proposed Patch
* Limiting the length of the mangled string to 264k characters.
* Limiting the loop iterations to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69832
--- Comment #2 from sonoro at telefonica dot net ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> I can't reproduce the ICE with -std=c++11 -fpermissive on x86_64-linux.
I am on 32 bits
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70024
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 1 Mar 2016, rth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70024
>
> Richard Henderson changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67278
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 1 Mar 2016, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67278
>
> --- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67278
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Mar 2 08:16:16 2016
New Revision: 233897
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233897&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-02 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/67278
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69832
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
I see, but I still can't reproduce even with -m32.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67278
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #6)
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67278
> >
> > --- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69687
--- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Patches should be posted to: gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70021
--- Comment #7 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Created attachment 37834 [details]
> gcc6-pr70021-wip.patch
>
> But that would mean we don't vectorize the loop.
> I see 2 cases here, one where we look up the d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65178
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
I think the issue is that uninit doesn't even try to see whether the loop
PHI node has its backedge always executed and that results in an always
initialized PHI result. It's also not that easy as it doesn'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67278
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67278
>
> --- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #6)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70026
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67278
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67278
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Mar 2 08:55:42 2016
New Revision: 233898
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233898&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-02 Richard Biener
Uros Bizjak
PR target/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #82 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For those who haven't seen it, I've put forward this patch on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01746.html based on a suggestion
from Jakub. (Unlike Richi's comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69832
--- Comment #4 from sonoro at telefonica dot net ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
> I see, but I still can't reproduce even with -m32.
I have added -fpermissive but nothing changes for me.
May be its no gcc issue but only mingw-bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69832
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Yeah, likely.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68087
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70035
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70035
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70032
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70039
Bug ID: 70039
Summary: Data placed into rodata that could be encoded as
immediates
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58526
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160302 (experimental) [trunk revision
dd4bd26:0fb01c5:a2cc9e8e2c74db1cdaa9269cde65d0a24f38cabe] (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-v' '-shared-libgcc' '-mtune=generic' '-march=x86-64'
/scratch/martin/utrunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70040
--- Comment #1 from Martin Reinecke ---
I am pretty sure that this used to work on trunk some time ago. Unfortunately I
don't have time for a bisection search at the moment ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70039
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Confirmed. The reason is that we really represent those initializers
differently,
one is a STRING_CST (handled) and one is a CONSTRUCTOR (not handled). memcpy
expansion does
src_str = c_getstr (src);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70039
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70040
--- Comment #2 from Martin Reinecke ---
Created attachment 37842
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37842&action=edit
further reduced test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70041
Bug ID: 70041
Summary: gcc -O2 generate different assembly code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70028
--- Comment #4 from Kirill Yukhin ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Created attachment 37835 [details]
> gcc6-pr70028.patch
>
> So what about this patch then? I don't see kmov* used with %k in other
> patterns, where "m" could a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69798
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
So an option here would be to:
--- a/gcc/c/c-parser.c
+++ b/gcc/c/c-parser.c
@@ -7512,28 +7512,6 @@ c_parser_postfix_expression (c_parser *parser)
set_c_expr_source_range (&expr, loc, close_loc);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65178
--- Comment #7 from Leon Winter ---
> #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wuninitialized"
>
> is your friend.
We do like this warning and threat it as an error as such situations normally
are a mistake which could lead to errors later on this swit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70042
Jan Engelhardt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70042
Bug ID: 70042
Summary: Room for optimization of x+1>y vs x>=y
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70043
Bug ID: 70043
Summary: [6 Regression] The compiler hangs in a fortran
test-case with -Ofast -g -march=haswell
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70040
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69987
Dominik Vogt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69904
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69990
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70001
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70002
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70004
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70029
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70018
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70029
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
The difference seems to be in FUNCTION_RVALUE_QUALIFIED and
FUNCTION_REF_QUALIFIED which were set in build_ref_qualified_type (but not for
the main type it seems).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70043
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70042
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70044
Bug ID: 70044
Summary: [5/6 Regression] -flto turns on -fomit-frame-pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70042
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Well, they are not equivalent ;) strlen returns a size_t variable and thus
strlen()+1 might wrap around zero ... (ok, insert argument here why
strlen() cannot return (size_t)~0 - terminating zero to the re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70040
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70045
Bug ID: 70045
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE error: mismatching comparison
operand types
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70041
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70045
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||spop at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70042
Jan Engelhardt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70028
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 2 13:10:36 2016
New Revision: 233904
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233904&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70028
* config/i386/i386.md (kmovw): Move m cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70022
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 2 13:11:21 2016
New Revision: 233905
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233905&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/68062
* c-c++-common/vector-compare-4.c: Add -Wno-psa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68062
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 2 13:11:21 2016
New Revision: 233905
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233905&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/68062
* c-c++-common/vector-compare-4.c: Add -Wno-ps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69941
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70028
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69973
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70017
Dominik Vogt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70046
Bug ID: 70046
Summary: [6 Regression] 410.bwaves regression on Haswell
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69990
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Wed Mar 2 14:05:21 2016
New Revision: 233906
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233906&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
decl alignment not respected
This patch cures a problem with ICF of read-on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68384
Tiziano Müller changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dev-zero at gentoo dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70046
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
--- Comment #14 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Wed Mar 2 14:10:56 2016
New Revision: 233907
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233907&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/69052
* loop-invariant.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70047
Bug ID: 70047
Summary: Warn on inefficient function parameter passing
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70048
Bug ID: 70048
Summary: [AArch64] Inefficient local array addressing
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67164
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70046
--- Comment #1 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Looks like at the time of that change. I will have a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70021
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
My patch (while IMHO needed) doesn't trigger on this testcase.
But, following untested hack:
--- tree-vect-stmts.c.jj3 2016-03-01 19:23:51.0 +0100
+++ tree-vect-stmts.c 2016-03-02 15:18:57.583
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70048
--- Comment #1 from Wilco ---
The regression seem to have appeared on trunk around Feb 3-9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69997
--- Comment #5 from Liu Qiang ---
Should I try to enable the MD_FALLBACK_FRAME_STATE_FOR for target specific
fallback mechanism?
in file src/gcc-5.3.0/libgcc/config/i386/linux-unwind.h,
#ifndef inhibit_libc
#define MD_FALLBACK_FRAME_STATE_FOR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70048
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70040
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Could be r233797 .
It is.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70048
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64402
--- Comment #4 from Yaakov Selkowitz ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #3)
> Created attachment 37172 [details]
> Patch to fix ICE and make interrupt restore r0
That allows me to finish the --without-headers build of 5.3.0 and subsequ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70048
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #3)
> Started with r233136.
That's why I forced base+offset out of memory reference and kept register
scaling in in the first place. I think my statement still h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68659
--- Comment #20 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed Mar 2 15:10:34 2016
New Revision: 233909
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233909&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Handle addr_expr and component_ref in graphite-ast-to-ast
2016
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68659
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
I don't think it is forbidden. The C standard allows some latitude for
constant expressions in initializers, so I think we could accept code as in
Comment 5, i.e. evaluate it to an arithmetic constant expres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55936
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
The main issue is that the PHI merging i and i = baz () has both edges
executable.
Visiting statement:
if (i_22 < 0)
Visiting conditional with predicate: if (i_22 < 0)
With known ranges
i_22: [j_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55936
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 37843
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37843&action=edit
patch
So I am testing the following.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68714
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
I find it strange that we do all operations on masks and not on "booleans" for
vectors.
typedef int T;
T f(T a,T b,T c,T d){
return (a:
_3 = a_1(D) < b_2(D);
_6 = c_4(D) < d_5(D);
_7 = _3 & _6;
_8 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70048
--- Comment #5 from Wilco ---
(In reply to amker from comment #4)
> (In reply to ktkachov from comment #3)
> > Started with r233136.
>
> That's why I forced base+offset out of memory reference and kept register
> scaling in in the first place.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70029
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
In other words, build_ref_qualified_type creates method_type T with
TYPE_CANONICAL (t) = t;
but
TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (t) is not t (it differs because the main variant doesn't
have FUNCTION_RVALUE_QUALIFIED and F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69972
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Martin said almost exactly what I was going to say :-)
Compilers are allowed to accept this, as Clang does, but they are not required
to.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68087
--- Comment #11 from Christophe Lyon ---
gcc-5-branch fixed by r233903.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70045
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70035
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68187
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70049
Bug ID: 70049
Summary: [6 Regression] Error: operand size mismatch for
`vpextrw' (wrong assembly generated) with -masm=intel
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70021
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37834|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69481
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62184
imitrichev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||imitrichev at muctr dot ru
--- Comment #6 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69685
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
1 - 100 of 174 matches
Mail list logo
