https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93888
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:64ba6d17022eeb65f56f0b141c2640f9ab938f97
commit r10-7014-g64ba6d17022eeb65f56f0b141c2640f9ab938f97
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91855
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|9.2.1 |10.0
--- Comment #10 from Jo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93871
--- Comment #38 from Thomas Henlich ---
(In reply to Thomas Henlich from comment #37)
> It would make sense to keep optimization in mind:
>
> Several calls to conversions of the same value should be performed only once.
>
> As a special case: C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93462
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6352c50d06a8ca0157293ecb0ef1f8a6dc19148a
commit r8-10110-g6352c50d06a8ca0157293ecb0ef1f8a6dc19148a
Author: Tobias Burnus
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93462
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91623
--- Comment #18 from David Seifert ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #17)
> Can't reproduce, compiles without any ICE since the above mentioned commits.
> In #c15 you are clearing testing with GCC 9.2.0, but that is expected, the
> bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91623
--- Comment #19 from David Seifert ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #17)
> Can't reproduce, compiles without any ICE since the above mentioned commits.
> In #c15 you are clearing testing with GCC 9.2.0, but that is expected, the
> bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93462
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Schwinge ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #9)
> (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #6)
> > Also needed on releases/gcc-8, to avoid introducing a regression, since […]
> > "backport: re PR fortran/9297
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93465
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Thomas, can I ping on this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93314
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87560
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by William Schmidt :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0b0908c1f27d12a3cbbd3c9fd55aec1fe87586a6
commit r10-7020-g0b0908c1f27d12a3cbbd3c9fd55aec1fe87586a6
Author: Bill Schmidt
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81690
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
Regarding {target-32.c, thread-limit-2.c}, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-02/msg00422.html
for a busy-wait implementation, which was supposed get rewritten (see next
message in thread) "using d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87560
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
I plan to backport the fix to releases/gcc-9 after 9.3 releases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81690
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #6)
> for a busy-wait implementation, which was supposed get rewritten (see next
> message in thread) "using declare variant".
The missing bit referenced there is:
htt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93399
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94030
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94028
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93949
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93949
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a9e9ff7b8a4d10ccf54dd4a641dd55c1b1645e17
commit r8-10111-ga9e9ff7b8a4d10ccf54dd4a641dd55c1b1645e17
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93465
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |openmp
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93871
--- Comment #39 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 12:07:18PM +, thenlich at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93871
>
> On the other hand side, always folding sind(45...90) to cosd(45...0) and
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94004
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93962
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Absolutely.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93159
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ping.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93888
--- Comment #5 from Mike Gulick ---
Thanks Jakub! I can confirm that this fixes the issue for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93993
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3d66e153b40ed000af30a9e569a05f34d5d576aa
commit r10-7023-g3d66e153b40ed000af30a9e569a05f34d5d576aa
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93950
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3d66e153b40ed000af30a9e569a05f34d5d576aa
commit r10-7023-g3d66e153b40ed000af30a9e569a05f34d5d576aa
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93647
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3d66e153b40ed000af30a9e569a05f34d5d576aa
commit r10-7023-g3d66e153b40ed000af30a9e569a05f34d5d576aa
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93544
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3d66e153b40ed000af30a9e569a05f34d5d576aa
commit r10-7023-g3d66e153b40ed000af30a9e569a05f34d5d576aa
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93993
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e516294a1acb28d44cfd583cc6a80354044e
commit r10-7024-ge516294a1acb28d44cfd583cc6a80354044e
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93993
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93962
--- Comment #6 from Gerald Pfeifer ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #3)
> Gerald, I wanted to reproduce the error so that I could in turn verify the
> proposed fix of using std:abs would work.
I verified that the fix of using std::ab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93871
--- Comment #40 from Thomas Henlich ---
Now I get it, symmetry is beautiful: Both sin(x) and cos(x) for any x can
always be calculated with one range reduction to 0...45, one call to sincos(),
and a sign transfer for each result.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94032
Bug ID: 94032
Summary: Please provide std::string::__resize_default_init
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93800
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94021
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Since the merge with the sprintf pass, the strlen pass has an instance of EVRP
that it passes to sprintf to get range info from (it also uses it itself in
places).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93871
--- Comment #41 from Thomas Henlich ---
One would assume that fast FMA
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMA_instruction_set) is or will be available to
the modern Fortran enthusiast, in the year 202x.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
Bug ID: 94033
Summary: is_trivially_copy_constructible<> fails with compiler
error on complicated object with private default
constructor
Product: gcc
Version: un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93962
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So do you think you could attach preprocessed sources from both the working and
failing builds so that we can look up at the differences?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93871
--- Comment #42 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 04:35:02PM +, thenlich at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93871
>
> --- Comment #41 from Thomas Henlich ---
> One would assume that fast FMA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94032
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We'll add it when it's in the draft standard. Adding it before then would
either mean only making it available for C++20 mode, or adding it to the shared
library exports as a stable ABI artefact. Neither se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83733
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90432
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Probably another instance of PR 93983 and PR PR 93923.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94025
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94003
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
--- Comment #2 from Avi Kivity ---
It does not look similar to 93923. There, there is an incomplete type. In my
reproducer the type is complete but the default constructor is private.
Note that for simple cases is_trivially_constructible works (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93800
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81401
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85741
Bug 85741 depends on bug 81401, which changed state.
Bug 81401 Summary: False positive sprintf warning at O2 (-Wformat-overflow)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81401
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81401
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3ca63e1c76b7693b5d3f5ba2567421defc764249
commit r10-7027-g3ca63e1c76b7693b5d3f5ba2567421defc764249
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94028
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka ---
I can no longer reproduce this with r10-7026 , seems to be fixed by r10-7023
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94034
Bug ID: 94034
Summary: Broken diagnostic: 'result_decl' not supported by
dump_expr
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91953
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] G++|[8 Regression] G++ rejects
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80776
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2017-05-16 00:00:00 |2020-3-4
See Also|
c && ./a.out
py[8] = 1
py[8] = 0
--
gcc x86-64 version: gcc (GCC) 10.0.1 20200304 (experimental)
--
The value 0x1p-16382l admits two representations:
00 00 80 00 00 00 00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94035
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
clang bug -- https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45101
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94036
Bug ID: 94036
Summary: [9 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/pr72804.c fails
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92601
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94004
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94028
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Yes, the ICE was fixed by r10-7023-g3d66e153b40ed000af30a9e569a05f34d5d576aa.
It's a similar issue to the reproducer for PR analyzer/93993.
I'll add your reproducer as a further regression test; thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91993
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36566
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93981
--- Comment #15 from jwjagersma at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 47970
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47970&action=edit
alternative patch v3
Alternative to last patch. Inserts the debug stmt across the fallthrough edg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91993
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47971
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47971&action=edit
gcc10-pr91993-wip.patch
As implemented in this completely untested (so far) patch, which makes the
-Wconversion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806
--- Comment #40 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #35)
> > You seem to say that either Annex F is fully there or not at all but why?
> > -fno-signed-zeros breaks Annex F but only parts of it. Isn't it possibl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81288
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Works in GCC 9, as in, the target does not exist any more in GCC 9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80700
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Summary|[8/9/10 Regr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94030
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Target Milestone|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94037
Bug ID: 94037
Summary: Runtime varies 2x just by order of two int assignments
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94038
Bug ID: 94038
Summary: Compiling with -Wall causes function template to get
needlessly instantiated
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93978
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||94038
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94038
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94004
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92478
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8 Regression] ICE: |[8 Regression] ICE on
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91678
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
With this patch GCC 9 ICEs on:
$ ./cc1plus -quiet pr87768.C -std=gnu++2a -fconcepts
pr87768.C: In instantiation of ‘constexpr const bool c::f’:
pr87768.C:14:29: required from here
pr87768.C:9:29: internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36566
--- Comment #13 from Rene Rahn ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #12)
> (In reply to Rene Rahn from comment #10)
> > I know this is quite old now. But can someone explain me why using `#pragma
> > pack(push, 1)` does work then? I couldn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86801
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86772
Bug 86772 depends on bug 86801, which changed state.
Bug 86801 Summary: Powerpcspe port (may) need updating for CVE-2017-5753
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86801
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94034
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94038
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> > This seems to be a regression from GCC 9.
>
> Are you sure? I see the same thing with GCC 6.
Oops, you're right, it's not a regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94028
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4ac3eb5c5f157bea22b5ae34b0df254d729dac25
commit r10-7028-g4ac3eb5c5f157bea22b5ae34b0df254d729dac25
Author: David Malcolm
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94039
Bug ID: 94039
Summary: conditional operator fails to use proper overload
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93993
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4ac3eb5c5f157bea22b5ae34b0df254d729dac25
commit r10-7028-g4ac3eb5c5f157bea22b5ae34b0df254d729dac25
Author: David Malcolm
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86133
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85121
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81628
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71012
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806
--- Comment #41 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 4 Mar 2020, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> We're actually careful about the sign of zero here when recording
> requivalences for propagation. I don't see anything preventing
> e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94028
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37759
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87083
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85170
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84302
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49854
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93986
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:10591cfe6cac200e926a73f3b8065147ce84
commit r10-7030-g10591cfe6cac200e926a73f3b8065147ce84
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93986
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90432
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6876b269bc7fe6465fedfed87c31e6175992129f
commit r10-7031-g6876b269bc7fe6465fedfed87c31e6175992129f
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90432
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9af9e004831f8efdfb68c2affea07b17fadd3279
commit r9-8332-g9af9e004831f8efdfb68c2affea07b17fadd3279
Author: Jason Merrill
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90997
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:831d4a690053599d2d0aa9713642b8513fdf8f5b
commit r9-8331-g831d4a690053599d2d0aa9713642b8513fdf8f5b
Author: Jason Merrill
Dat
1 - 100 of 690 matches
Mail list logo
