https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71911
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65483
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Does this still happen or do we need to crank up the inlining limits still?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72859
Bug ID: 72859
Summary: Building GCC Cross-Compiler on cygwin for PowerPC
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72860
Bug ID: 72860
Summary: Building GCC Cross-Compiler on cygwin for PowerPC
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72859
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 72860 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72860
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72859
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc-eabi
Host|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63586
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63596
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36412
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Peter Klotz from comment #2)
> Hello Martin
>
> It's great that you came up with a solution!
>
> Meanwhile I removed "-l" from the command line to avoid the error and use an
> additional script
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71691
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 9 Aug 2016, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71691
>
> --- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
> Based on c#6 I started thinking about how to m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72861
Bug ID: 72861
Summary: [7 Regression] 25% tramp3d-v4 performance regression
on ppc64le
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72832
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72856
Gerald Pfeifer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gerald at pfeifer dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72832
--- Comment #3 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This patch fragment fixes the first issue:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c
index 5884e7a..8e5428a 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
If we have release checking enabled then we shuould hit
static void
df_analyze_1 (void)
{
...
#ifndef ENABLE_DF_CHECKING
if (df->changeable_flags & DF_VERIFY_SCHEDULED)
#endif
df_verify ();
so I wond
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72831
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72785
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71981
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71981
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #6)
> Fixed on trunk and gcc-6-branch, so hopefully everywhere (I did not verify
> gcc 5 is OK but let's trust the bug title).
Yeah, I've just verified that GCC 5 branc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72831
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72851
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44779
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to amker from comment #1)
> Among all loops in the large function, how many loops can be doloop
> optimized successfully? Function doloop__optimize has some valid checks on
> doloop optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72850
Yuri Rumyantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ysrumyan at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72850
--- Comment #4 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 39093
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39093&action=edit
test-case to reproduce
It is safficient use -Ofast option to compile on x86 machine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72832
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
For the record, the following test
program allocate_source
type :: t
end type t
type, extends(t) :: tt
end type tt
type(t), allocatable, dimension(:) :: a, b
allocate(a(1:2))
write(*,*)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72741
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Schwinge ---
(In reply to cesar from comment #4)
> I could be mistaken, but I don't think there's anything we can do about that
> test case because fortran doesn't have file scope. Specifically, in your
> example,
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72832
--- Comment #5 from Daan van Vugt ---
Thanks for the quick responses.
Just out of interest: what is the recommended way to allocate a class(t)
variable of the same type as a but different size?
Do I need to select type and list all of the types?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72856
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72856
--- Comment #4 from Frédéric Buclin ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #3)
> I wonder about the effort required to do such a thing. Some of those emails
> seem fake, is there some kind of confirmation email for newly created
> acco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72861
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72824
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Aug 10 12:16:39 2016
New Revision: 239319
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239319&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-08-09 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72848
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to mikulas from comment #2)
> gcc/hwint.h always defines HOST_WIDE_INT as 64-bit value. How could it be
> 32-bit?
Ah, didn't remember we fixed it to 64bit already with GCC 5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72859
--- Comment #3 from 993870b5 at opayq dot com ---
Created attachment 39094
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39094&action=edit
config.log from the gcc subdirectory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72851
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Huh, if the reghunt is correct it points at some latent issue. Will try to
reproduce with a cross.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72856
--- Comment #5 from Frédéric Buclin ---
(In reply to Gerald Pfeifer from comment #2)
> As for rate throttling, how about only allowing for a single bug
> report per day until a bug report has been "processed"
Isn't one bug per day a bit rude fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72851
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72856
--- Comment #6 from Frank Ch. Eigler ---
Per-account rate limits seem so easy to overcome, with spammers already
creating numerous verified junk accounts with ease.
I would suggest focusing on spam-prevention content analysis (spamassassin
style
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71873
--- Comment #1 from Senthil Kumar Selvaraj ---
Author: saaadhu
Date: Wed Aug 10 12:35:57 2016
New Revision: 239321
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239321&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR 71873 - ICE in push_reload
Extend computation of subreg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72851
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Reduced testcase:
typedef unsigned char uint8_t;
typedef unsigned long int uint64_t;
union unaligned_64 {
uint64_t l;
}
__attribute__((packed)) __attribute__((may_alias));
typedef struct AVDES {
uin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72851
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Klose ---
configured --with-arch=zEC12, I can reproduce it with a cross as well. so maybe
check with -march=zEC12?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here is a simple refactoring patch.
diff --git a/gcc/loop-doloop.c b/gcc/loop-doloop.c
index c311516..9fb04cf 100644
--- a/gcc/loop-doloop.c
+++ b/gcc/loop-doloop.c
@@ -254,18 +254,51 @@ doloop_con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72863
Bug ID: 72863
Summary: Powerpc64le: redundant swaps when using vec_vsx_ld/st
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #27 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Aug 10 13:14:56 2016
New Revision: 239324
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239324&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add new *_atomic counter update function
PR gcov-profile/58306
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72740
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72832
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28441
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72863
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
Egad. How appalling. I'll have a look soon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72851
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, so with clever stmt / SSA use ordering you can get to quadratic propagation
as VRP allows ranges to arbitrarily grow:
Found new range for res_561: [0, 20368]
Found new range for res_561: [0, 20370]
Foun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72853
--- Comment #6 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Wed Aug 10 13:49:12 2016
New Revision: 239325
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239325&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-08-10 Michael Meissner
PR target/72853
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72740
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72740
>
> Eric Botcazou changed:
>
>What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #29 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #28)
> Fixed on trunk.
Thanks!
Will GCC 6.1.1 include these patches?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72832
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Likely caused by r229294 (PRs 67044 and 66927).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72857
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72864
Bug ID: 72864
Summary: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr72802.c fails on
x86_64-apple-darwin15 with -m32
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35543
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72741
--- Comment #6 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #5)
> (In reply to cesar from comment #4)
> Are you saying that's not how the Fortran front end operates, and the
> "SUBROUTINE r_w" and the later "PROGRAM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72859
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Comment on attachment 39094
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39094
config.log from the gcc subdirectory
configure:5756: checking size of short
configure:5776: result: 0
...
configure:5824
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72865
Bug ID: 72865
Summary: Adding __may_alias__ attribute triggers a compilation
error
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72865
--- Comment #1 from Aleksej Lebedev ---
Forgot to tell what platform I'm running this:
$ uname -a
Linux zhtw-pc 4.2.0-41-generic #48-Ubuntu SMP Fri Jun 24 11:28:43 UTC 2016
x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Exact version of the GCC:
$ g++ --version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71734
--- Comment #13 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Aug 10 15:03:02 2016
New Revision: 239326
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239326&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR tree-optimization/71734
2016-08-10 Yuri Rumyantsev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72865
--- Comment #2 from Aleksej Lebedev ---
Just tried it with gcc-6.0.0 under DragonflyBSD. It seems that the bug is
fixed.
$ uname -a
DragonFly kl.zta.lk 4.4-RELEASE DragonFly v4.4.3.1.gf6df7-RELEASE #8: Thu Apr
21 17:59:21 CEST 2016 r...@kl.z
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> If we have release checking enabled then we shuould hit
>
> static void
> df_analyze_1 (void)
> {
> ...
> #ifndef ENABLE_DF_CHECKING
> if (df->changeable_flags
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to amker from comment #4)
> It reduces compile time for powerpc-elf on x86_64 machine from 54m to 5m.
> The compiler is configured with checking. With "--enable-checking=release",
> the current tru
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72859
--- Comment #5 from 993870b5 at opayq dot com ---
Thank you.
How can I fix the checking of size for short and long types?
configure:5756: checking size of short
configure:5776: result: 0
...
configure:5824: checking size of long
configure:5844:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71815
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
I'm not comfortable with the results of the patch. Overall I see a slight
improvement for SPECint CPU2006 and a slightly larger degradation for SPECfp
CPU2006. But there are some individual slowdowns that ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71956
Yuri Rumyantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ysrumyan at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72866
Bug ID: 72866
Summary: [7 Regression] Compile time hog w/ -O3 (-Ofast)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: compile-time-hog
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On August 10, 2016 5:15:43 PM GMT+02:00, "wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
>
>--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
>(In reply to Richard Bie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72866
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36412
--- Comment #4 from Peter Klotz ---
Hi Martin
The company I work for makes heavy use of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.
According to this article, a GCC 6 based Red Hat Developer Toolset should be
available in the not too distant future.
http://de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69565
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72867
Bug ID: 72867
Summary: SSE/AVX/AVX512: incorrect optimization of
VMINPS/VMAXPS at compile time
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72782
--- Comment #1 from Wenzel Jakob ---
Looks like this issue was first reported in 2014 but got stuck -- see Bug
63351.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72853
--- Comment #7 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Wed Aug 10 18:15:37 2016
New Revision: 239331
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239331&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline:
[gcc]
2016-08-10 Michael Meissner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63351
Wenzel Jakob changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wen...@mitsuba-renderer.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72853
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72824
--- Comment #8 from Wenzel Jakob ---
Thank you, I can confirm that the issue is fixed on my end.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On August 10, 2016 7:20:00 PM GMT+02:00, "dje at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
>
>David Edelsohn changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72868
Bug ID: 72868
Summary: Constexpr expressions mistreat case ranges
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72869
Bug ID: 72869
Summary: $@$@^^^18557092847@$$@$$*** Epson printer
technical support number.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72865
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72872
Bug ID: 72872
Summary: $@$@^^^18557092847@$$@$$*** Lexmark printer
technical support number.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72868
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72873
Bug ID: 72873
Summary: error: ‘asm’ operand has impossible constraints
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72874
Bug ID: 72874
Summary: $@$@^^^18557092847@$$@$$*** KOdak printer
technical support number.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72868
--- Comment #2 from Alex Marquez ---
Created attachment 39099
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39099&action=edit
Test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72875
Bug ID: 72875
Summary: $@$@^^^18557092847@$$@$$*** Brother printer
technical support number.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72876
Bug ID: 72876
Summary: $@^^1=855=709=2847^^@@%@%@$$ Kodak Printer tech
support phone number
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72877
Bug ID: 72877
Summary: $@$@^^^18557092847@$$@$$*** CANon printer
technical support number.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72878
Bug ID: 72878
Summary: Get Help @+***1..855..709..2847**$$@@ Canon Printer
Technical Support Contact Number,
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72868
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler ---
The quoted essentials also require you to provide the full command line (A
range in a switch case is not Standard C++), please read about what's needed in
the quoted document.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72881
Bug ID: 72881
Summary: $@^^1=855=709=2847^^@@%@%@$$ Canon Printer tech
support phone number
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72884
Bug ID: 72884
Summary: Contact U$$D ***@@18557092847$$$HP p.r.i.n.t.e.r
t.e.c.h s.u.p.p.o.r.t p.h.o.n.e n.u.m.b.e.r u.s.a.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.1
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72868
--- Comment #4 from Alex Marquez ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #3)
> The quoted essentials also require you to provide the full command line (A
> range in a switch case is not Standard C++), please read about what's needed
> in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72868
--- Comment #5 from Alex Marquez ---
Created attachment 39104
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39104&action=edit
Preprocessed test case
1 - 100 of 208 matches
Mail list logo
