https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71762
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71762
>
> Jeffrey A. Law changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78283
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78282
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #13 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #11)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> > extern char **environ;
> > #endif
> >
> > -#if defined(__has_include) && __has_include()
> > +#if defined(__
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78286
Bug ID: 78286
Summary: typename, type members and non-type members: code
should be rejected, but it is not
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78286
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>Moreover, in this case foo is not a dependent name and typename couldn't be
>used.
That is not true. There was a defect report (DR 382) against the C++ standard
to allow that; I should know I implemented
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #13 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
[...]
> The fixincludes fix looks cleaner, but it's harder to me to cook a patch
> because:
>
> 1) I have no experience with fixincludes.
> 2)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78286
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#382
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78286
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Now the struct is invalid anyways even without the main function but the C++
standard does not require a diagnostic :).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78268
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78232
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78248
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71762
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78287
Bug ID: 78287
Summary: #line directive with value more than 2147483640 prints
out the value twice
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77501
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78112
--- Comment #12 from pmderodat at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: pmderodat
Date: Thu Nov 10 11:06:32 2016
New Revision: 242035
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242035&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
debug/78112: remove recent duplicates for DW_TAG_subpro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78232
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78288
Bug ID: 78288
Summary: Compile time hog (with var-tracking) in
libsanitizer/asan/asan_interceptors.cc
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78112
Pierre-Marie de Rodat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78288
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78270
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu Nov 10 11:21:03 2016
New Revision: 242036
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242036&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Create live_switch_vars conditionally (PR sanitizer/78270)
PR san
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78270
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78288
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
--- Comment #2 from Ri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78288
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Thanks for the references and explanation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #15 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Created attachment 40012
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40012&action=edit
Untested fix 2.
Ok, thanks.
I'm attaching a second short-term fix for now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Preapproved. If/once Rainer will have a fixincludes patch, this can be
reverted.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78103
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78114
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It's because the loop is vectorized by vf=2 with -mavx2, while by vf=4 with
-march=haswell. In that case the peeled prolog iterates more than 1 times,
resulting in test failure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #17 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 40013
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40013&action=edit
proposed fixincludes-based patch
The attached patch passes fixincludes make check. I'll have to wait until
toni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78257
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> Created attachment 40008 [details]
> Very lightly tested patch.
>
> The attached (only superficially tested) patch changes fold_bultin_memcmp to
> fold the compari
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78289
Bug ID: 78289
Summary: OpenMP produces high CPU load if used in more than one
process
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78114
--- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
But for tests:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-mgrid-resid.f -O scan-tree-dump-times pcom
"Executing predictive commoning without unrolling" 1
FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-mgrid-resid.f -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78201
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78289
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78201
--- Comment #5 from Yvan Roux ---
Ok, I'll validate the fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77703
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77761
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78290
Bug ID: 78290
Summary: Gfortran incorrectly creates a copy of an array passed
to an array pointer dummy argument
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78291
Bug ID: 78291
Summary: overload resolution prefers non-member operator to
member operator when should be ambiguous
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77856
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77337
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77309
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Summ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78292
Bug ID: 78292
Summary: [7 regression] test case gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-2.c
fails starting with r241967
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78292
--- Comment #1 from Bill Seurer ---
r241967 | amker | 2016-11-08 08:08:06 -0600 (Tue, 08 Nov 2016) | 3 lines
gcc/testsuite
* gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-2.c: Drop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78114
--- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here is the reason failing with haswell.
The loop is vectorized by vf=4, but iteration distance for all possible
predictive commoning chains are at most 2 (by iterations), so after vf=4
vectorizatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78292
--- Comment #2 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry for that. Yes, GCC still requires vect_max_reduc to vectorize the loop,
I will amend the test case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78293
Bug ID: 78293
Summary: SIGABRT with function result used as argument
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78294
Bug ID: 78294
Summary: -fsanitize=thread broken
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78295
Bug ID: 78295
Summary: [7 Regression] Spurious -Wuninitialized warning for
vector element assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78293
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78277
foreese at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78290
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78296
Bug ID: 78296
Summary: [7 regression] test case gcc.dg/ipa/vrp7.c fails
starting with r242032
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72808
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77337
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78295
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #18 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Created attachment 40013 [details]
> proposed fixincludes-based patch
>
> The attached patch passes fixincludes make check. I'll have to wait until
> tonight to test it for real on macOS 10.12, tho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78295
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #18 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
[...]
> Bootstrap is still broken with the patch:
[...]
Did you regen fixincl.x (with ./genfixes in the source tree)?
A macOS 10.12 boot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #20 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Did you regen fixincl.x (with ./genfixes in the source tree)?
I did a clean bootstrap, but I did know that I had to run ./genfixes. BTW you
probably mean ./fixincludes/genfixes, isn't it?
I am cur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78297
Bug ID: 78297
Summary: ICE in finish_equivalences, at
fortran/trans-common.c:1246
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78297
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Compiles with both items in common block.
$ cat z2.f90
module m
real :: a(2), b(2)
real :: c(2), d(2)
equivalence (a, b)
equivalence (c, d)
common /xcom/ a, c
end
block data
use m
en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78298
Bug ID: 78298
Summary: ICE in lookup_decl_in_outer_ctx, bei omp-low.c:4115
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78241
--- Comment #3 from Pat Haugen ---
Author: pthaugen
Date: Thu Nov 10 18:55:57 2016
New Revision: 242047
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242047&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/78241
* loop-unroll.c (unroll_loop_run
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78241
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78299
Bug ID: 78299
Summary: ICE in expand_omp_for_static_nochunk, at
omp-low.c:9622
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78300
Bug ID: 78300
Summary: Failure to compile a Fortran-2003 code with an
optional dummy procedure argument.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78277
--- Comment #3 from Fritz Reese ---
Created attachment 40016
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40016&action=edit
patch for pr78277
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-11/msg00087.html
Patch proposed, will commit soon unless
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78277
Fritz Reese changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78300
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78300
--- Comment #2 from DIL ---
Created attachment 40017
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40017&action=edit
Source file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78300
--- Comment #3 from DIL ---
Created attachment 40018
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40018&action=edit
Source file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78300
--- Comment #4 from DIL ---
Created attachment 40019
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40019&action=edit
Source file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #21 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Created attachment 40012 [details]
> Untested fix 2.
Bootstrap completed successfully with this patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78301
Bug ID: 78301
Summary: noexcept() operator rejects sibling method call
without object
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78300
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78300
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 09:06:15PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
>
> Confirmed from 4.8 up to trunk (7.0). It would be nice to have a reduced
> reproducer.
>
I certainly agree with! It took a bit t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77459
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78300
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
Here's a patch that allows the reduced testcase compile.
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/resolve.c (revision 241667)
+++ g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77337
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Nov 10 21:42:36 2016
New Revision: 242056
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242056&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/77337 - auto return and lambda
* pt.c (tsubst_frie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77337
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78277
--- Comment #4 from Fritz Reese ---
Author: foreese
Date: Thu Nov 10 21:57:13 2016
New Revision: 242058
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242058&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix ICE and improve errors for invalid anonymous structure declarations.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78277
Fritz Reese changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78302
Bug ID: 78302
Summary: is_move_constructible_v> should be
false
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78300
--- Comment #8 from DIL ---
Is there a way to download the GCC source with this patch applied?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78296
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78297
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78232
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Nov 10 22:45:39 2016
New Revision: 242059
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242059&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine: Do not call simplify from inside change_zero_ext (PR78232)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78300
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:40:15PM +, liakhdi at ornl dot gov wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78300
>
> --- Comment #8 from DIL ---
> Is there a way to download the GCC source with t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78300
--- Comment #10 from DIL ---
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78300
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Not yet. I won't have time to apply the patch until
> tomorrow or Saturday. I posted the patch to bugzilla
> so it does not get lost. Once it is in the source tree,
> you can use svn to pull the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77414
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The tests z7.f90, z8.f90, and z9.f90 compiles without error
> at revision r242002 although I think they are invalid.
> They give an ICE with r241962.
This is due to r241972 (pr77596).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78300
--- Comment #12 from DIL ---
Indeed, thanks again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44348
--- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The test in comment 2 compiles without error at revision r242002
> although I think it is invalid. It gives an ICE with r241962.
This is due to r241972 (pr77596).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78302
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
See also PR 71301.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37998
--- Comment #1 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: sandra
Date: Thu Nov 10 23:56:30 2016
New Revision: 242062
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242062&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-10 Sandra Loosemore
PR c/37998
gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78264
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78302
--- Comment #2 from TC ---
Ugh, quasi-dup, I suppose. But if I'm reading the correspondence correctly, the
ABI breaking is only because of triviality, correct?
So if we just want to make is_move_constructible not lie, it should be possible
to do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78225
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78127
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
