https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87269
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Nathan any progress here please?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
--- Comment #40 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 8 07:16:28 2018
New Revision: 264912
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264912&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-10-08 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/63155
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64120
--- Comment #11 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #10)
> I think inside the logical function (in the local scope) the length of s has
> to be printed as the value of the argument x, so 1 and 2, with or without
> the 'sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87431
--- Comment #8 from Antony Polukhin ---
Here's an idea:
Make valueless_by_exception() always false if all the alternatives are
trivially copyable. Implement copying and constructions/emplace for such
variants as a construction of a temporary + m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87528
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87531
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
--- Comment #41 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #39)
> Oh, and backprop is really intersect_uses () with
>
> FOR_EACH_IMM_USE_STMT (stmt, iter, var)
> {
>
> being quadratic due to its stupid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87537
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87539
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-reduction
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87286
--- Comment #1 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Mon Oct 8 08:16:13 2018
New Revision: 264913
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264913&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Don't ICE on vectors of enums (PR 87286)
We've traditio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87540
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87541
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87542
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87540
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Oh, and in your case there is a dependence. So "correct" and actually
compilable one:
#define ARRAY_SIZE 1024
#define N_TIMES 1
int foo(double *array)
{
int i;
double sum;
for (i = 0; i < N_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87548
Bug ID: 87548
Summary: Optimize fetch atomics with unused results
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87549
Bug ID: 87549
Summary: Optimize fetch atomics with unused results
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87543
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87546
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87545
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86372
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87549
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87530
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87543
--- Comment #2 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> The issue at -O2 is etc.
That is one issue, but there is the question of the changes in behavior between
versions and when `-march` is used. I don't know if yo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71128
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Oct 8 09:02:55 2018
New Revision: 264914
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264914&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2018-10-08 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/71128
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87545
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|rguenth at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71128
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 71128, which changed state.
Bug 71128 Summary: [concepts] ICE on ill-formed explicit instantiation of a
function concept
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71128
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87543
--- Comment #2 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> The issue at -O2 is etc.
That is one issue, but there is the question of the changes in behavior between
versions and when `-march` is used. I don't know if yo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86372
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87531
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87151
--- Comment #3 from Jürgen Reuter ---
This now works with the actual trunk (r264898), and gives the anticipated
result
2 3. So either it was fixed by one of Paul's other fixes, or he just didn't
comment on this one here. But of course it needs t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54005
--- Comment #28 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #27)
> BTW, why use __alignof and not alignof?
Because alignof can only be used with a type and we use it with _M_i.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10624
Eyal Rozenberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eyalroz at technion dot ac.il
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87539
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87528
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Can you point me to the source for which we generate the popcount call(s)?
> It might be not final value replacement but instead code-generating a niter
> a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55735
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87151
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #3)
> This now works with the actual trunk (r264898), and gives the anticipated
> result
> 2 3. So either it was fixed by one of Paul's other fixes, or he just didn't
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87548
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54005
--- Comment #29 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #27)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #24)
> > (In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #22)
> > > Or do I misread that? Are __alignof(x) and th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55735
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> In the recent trunk (r264725) does _not_ give an ICE anymore, but the code
> is vetoed as non-standard, as it is for nagfor and ifort. So, should this
> be closed now?
I still get an ICE:
pr55735.f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55735
--- Comment #7 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Ah sorry, I think I moved around the block data and then it wasn't valid
Fortran anymore. I think, both the block data and the subroutine are external
to the main program.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54005
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87431
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87544
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> allocator::max_size() is worse than useless
Fixed that for you.
https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#3044
https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-closed.html#197
For PR 78448 I recently changed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87544
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Maybe this:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_vector.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_vector.h
@@ -1726,7 +1726,11 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_CONTAINER
static size_type
_S_max_size(co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71586
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84516
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-02-27 00:00:00 |2018-10-8
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87547
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i686-linux-gnu |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87528
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Can you point me to the source for which we generate the popcount call(s)?
> It might be not final value replacement but instead code-generating a niter
> analy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71792
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87550
Bug ID: 87550
Summary: Intrinsics for rdpmc (__rdpmc, __builtin_ia32_rdpmc)
are interpreted as pure functions
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87538
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87528
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87528
>
> --- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87544
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> But the standard explicitly requires the
> allocator to be stupid, so I'm not sure what more libstdc++ can do here.
I think the standard specifies the fallback v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87544
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
>static size_type
>_S_max_size(const _Tp_alloc_type& __a) _GLIBCXX_NOEXCEPT
>{
> - const size_t __diffmax =
> __gnu_cxx::__numeric_tra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86372
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Oct 8 11:17:10 2018
New Revision: 264919
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264919&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-10-08 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/86372
* trans-stmt.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87525
--- Comment #6 from taz.007 at zoho dot com ---
Created attachment 44805
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44805&action=edit
script to build the shared lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87525
taz.007 at zoho dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #44794|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87546
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87525
--- Comment #8 from taz.007 at zoho dot com ---
I've been able to create a test case with just one file (not the same as the
first one attached).
you can lookup the build.sh to know how i've build the shared library.
Once built, you can objdump -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87546
--- Comment #3 from graham.stott77 at gmail dot com ---
'b' is never assigned a value, so surely it's undefined
Original message
From: helloqirun at gmail dot com
Date: 08/10/2018 04:51 (GMT+00:00)
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87525
Liu Hao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lh_mouse at 126 dot com
--- Comment #9 from Li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87525
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87538
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Oct 8 12:07:22 2018
New Revision: 264921
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264921&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/87538 fix std::not_fn exception specifications
PR l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87546
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87538
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.4.0
Summary|Incorrect noe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87551
Bug ID: 87551
Summary: [9 regression] libgnat-9.so fails to link on Solaris
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87538
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Oct 8 12:17:58 2018
New Revision: 264922
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264922&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/87538 Verify fix for std::experimental::not_fn
PR l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87544
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #6)
> I think the standard specifies the fallback value in allocator_traits for
> allocators that do not provide max_size (we could open an issue asking for
> more free
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87538
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87552
Bug ID: 87552
Summary: [9 regression] FAIL:
gcc.c-torture/compile/20010102-1.c -O3
-fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops
-ftracer -finline-functions (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87552
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87551
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87481
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87538
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Oct 8 12:54:41 2018
New Revision: 264924
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264924&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/87538 fix std::not_fn exception specifications
Backport fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86372
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Oct 8 13:02:36 2018
New Revision: 264925
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264925&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-10-08 Paul Thomas
Backport from trunk
PR fortran/86
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68241
Bug 68241 depends on bug 86372, which changed state.
Bug 86372 Summary: [8/9 Regression] Segfault on ASSOCIATE statement with
CHARACTER variable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86372
What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87477
Bug 87477 depends on bug 86372, which changed state.
Bug 86372 Summary: [8/9 Regression] Segfault on ASSOCIATE statement with
CHARACTER variable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86372
What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86372
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71792
--- Comment #3 from vadim ---
Created attachment 44807
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44807&action=edit
test case
after patch current test have to work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87481
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
There is actually nothing weird on that, with smaller ones we terminate the
inner loop early and then stop.
With the debugging -O0 build I have around, the constexpr processing is very
slow though, so I get a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87538
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Oct 8 13:13:06 2018
New Revision: 264926
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264926&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/87538 fix std::not_fn exception specifications
Backport fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87538
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87551
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87553
Bug ID: 87553
Summary: [9 regression] g++.dg/tree-prof/inline_mismatch_args.C
etc. FAIL
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87553
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87553
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71003
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86172
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87553
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
> It probably looks that there's missing profile file *.gcda. Can you check it's
> generate in -fprofile-generate run?
It isn't, however the g++ r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71003
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55881
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Some comments from a discussion with Martin and David:
%G and %K sometimes do not work with pragma
diagnostics. The reason is that the pragma diagnostics check is done
here:
https://github.com/gcc-mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87554
Bug ID: 87554
Summary: internal compiler error: in record_reference, at
cgraphbuild.c:64
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87553
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2)
> > --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
> > It probably looks that there's missing profile file *.gcda. Can you check
> > it's
> > generate in -fp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87554
--- Comment #1 from Mikhail Kremnyov ---
Created attachment 44808
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44808&action=edit
Preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87553
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
[...]
> When the executable is executed, the *.gcda file should be created. Please
> check why the file is not generated.
Sorry, I've been doing t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87274
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83522
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83999
--- Comment #11 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Oct 8 14:20:40 2018
New Revision: 264931
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264931&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-10-08 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/83999
Backport from t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83999
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
