https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96323
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95820
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.2|11.0
--- Comment #10 from Sergei Tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96311
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #224 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7f5c0f328eced560a204bb8e3eae0d45795dd235
commit r11-2338-g7f5c0f328eced560a204bb8e3eae0d45795dd235
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96320
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96323
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96311
--- Comment #2 from Tillmann Karras ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Confirmed, but it seems the code is rejected with clang:
> [...]
> Is it a valid test-case?
I think so.
There is a bug report for Clang: https://bugs.llvm.org/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96326
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96328
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96323
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96328
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Mark Wielaa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96328
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96328
--- Comment #4 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Created attachment 48930 [details]
> gcc11-pr96328.patch
>
> I wrote this for it (the first hunk is similar).
Yours is nicer because it fixes just the specific
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96329
Bug ID: 96329
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE : tree check: expected string_cst,
have error_mark in cp_parser_linkage_specification, at
cp/parser.c:14640
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96328
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48931
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48931&action=edit
gcc11-pr96328-alt.patch
If you want, we could call the safe_previous_token also in the other spot,
while we don
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96311
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Summary|false positive fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95612
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3eb264bd241598b27b765e198690a7cf4a2d91f8
commit r10-8536-g3eb264bd241598b27b765e198690a7cf4a2d91f8
Author: Mark Eggleston
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96311
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96329
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96058
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #225 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Martin Liska
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f93ce9ea23e1806ccf9d8cd1640fc14596f54be8
commit r10-8537-gf93ce9ea23e1806ccf9d8cd1640fc14596f54be8
Author: Martin Liska
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96328
--- Comment #6 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Created attachment 48931 [details]
> gcc11-pr96328-alt.patch
>
> If you want, we could call the safe_previous_token also in the other spot,
> while we don't have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96293
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96289
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-27
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96320
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96203
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c4c22e830251e1961c6ebec78d28d039eb2e6017
commit r11-2361-gc4c22e830251e1961c6ebec78d28d039eb2e6017
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Thu Jul 16 07
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96203
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96324
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-27
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96331
Bug ID: 96331
Summary: Class template argument deduction (CTAD) with Concepts
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96330
Bug ID: 96330
Summary: Constexpr variables cannot be used in the template
context.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95612
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5574b84469263eeaa3e6b40da18b743d7b0fa5dd
commit r9-8769-g5574b84469263eeaa3e6b40da18b743d7b0fa5dd
Author: Mark Eggleston
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96331
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96332
Bug ID: 96332
Summary: Asan (libasan) deadlock inside a malloc
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95612
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96332
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96332
--- Comment #2 from Carsten Haitzler ---
oh sorry - my bad. i didn't realize i had pasted it twice. a single bt - only a
single thread at the time (info threads in gdb reports just one).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77504
--- Comment #23 from Tiziano Müller ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #21)
> (In reply to Tiziano Müller from comment #19)
> > I have yet another (more complicated) case, but this time not reproducible
> > with gcc-7.5, only with 9 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96291
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org |slyfox at inbox dot ru
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96329
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96128
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:55c9695cbe91c406805ac0cd342949f32f13b779
commit r11-2362-g55c9695cbe91c406805ac0cd342949f32f13b779
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96128
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96306
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95730
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96333
Bug ID: 96333
Summary: Regression on concepts constraint checking
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96334
Bug ID: 96334
Summary: [og10] ICEs with commit
0122024b1908497bfe520361798579895bd75588 "openacc:
Shared memory layout optimisation"
Product: gcc
Version: og10 (d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96333
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96333
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.0
Summary|Regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96335
Bug ID: 96335
Summary: [10/11 Regression] ICE in maybe_warn_rdwr_sizes since
r10-4929
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96335
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
Assignee|unassigned at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96058
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7355a9408b990cdd20db91e2e1ba0b03e801d6a6
commit r11-2364-g7355a9408b990cdd20db91e2e1ba0b03e801d6a6
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96335
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48933
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48933&action=edit
gcc11-pr96335.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96058
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] ICE in |[11 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96333
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96235
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93385
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||suochenyao at 163 dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96333
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The commit is:
c++: Refinements to "more constrained".
P2113 from the last C++ meeting clarified that we only compare constraints
on functions or function templates that have equivalent templa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96313
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95397
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2020-07-25 00:0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96336
Bug ID: 96336
Summary: Multiple multiplications fails to optimize
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96336
--- Comment #1 from Fabio Azevedo ---
int f(int x) {
return x*x*x*x*x*x*x*x*x*x*x*x*x*x*x*x; //x**16
}
int g(int x) {
return x*x*x*x*x*x*x*x*x*x*x*x*x*x*x*x + x*x; //x**16 + x**2
}
Using gcc -O3, the first function simplifies to 4 intege
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96337
Bug ID: 96337
Summary: GCC 10.2: twice as slow for -O2 -march=x86-64 vs. GCC
9.3/8.4
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96330
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96338
Bug ID: 96338
Summary: [SVE] Unnecessary register saves in exception handler
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhanc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96313
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95397
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> :-| Hmm, strange. What GPU hardware and CUDA version is that?
AMD Radeon Pro 5500M, hence no CUDA AFAIK. I also don't know what I should with
AMD.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96293
--- Comment #5 from lavr at ncbi dot nlm.nih.gov ---
My test case is not invalid. You're talking about base address of a structure,
which would make offsets within it all unaligned, which is why I said "the same
rule should apply for aggregates".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96339
Bug ID: 96339
Summary: [SVE] Optimise svlast[ab]
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96324
--- Comment #2 from Jesus Christ ---
Created attachment 48934
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48934&action=edit
your isomorphic allocator is limited to 80% of the allocation
isomorphic algorithms are limited by The Pareto Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96324
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96340
Bug ID: 96340
Summary: Extend AArch64 "omp declare simd" support to general
simdlen
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96341
Bug ID: 96341
Summary: Support mixed element widths for AArch64 "omp declare
simd" functions
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96342
Bug ID: 96342
Summary: [SVE] Add support for "omp declare simd"
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92812
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Another test to consider:
struct S1 {
int i;
int j;
};
struct S2 {
S1 s[4];
};
struct S3 {
S2 s2;
};
void f()
{
auto s3 = static_cast(1);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96247
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d60758c74af849539f5dd71a8456eea954c0f674
commit r11-2368-gd60758c74af849539f5dd71a8456eea954c0f674
Author: Hu Jiangping
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96320
--- Comment #11 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 48935
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48935&action=edit
Proposed patch for the PR
I decided that the best way of proceeding was to correct the array spec and
benefit fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96343
Bug ID: 96343
Summary: LTO ICE on PPC64le
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
Assignee: unassi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96343
--- Comment #1 from Axel ---
I did verify that `gcc-ar` is used for intermediate libraries in the build.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96344
Bug ID: 96344
Summary: [11 regerssion] gnat.dg/opt86a.adb fails starting with
r11-
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96343
--- Comment #2 from Axel ---
The flags the CMake adds for LTO are -flto -fno-fat-lto-objects
The projects are otherwise C++11 and C++14 projects.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96344
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host||powerpc64*-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96247
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96320
--- Comment #12 from Damian Rouson ---
Thanks to each of you for looking at and working on this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96337
Dávid Bolvanský changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david.bolvansky at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96320
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
With the attached patch I get several ICEs:
(lldb) run /opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/asan/pointer_assign_16.f90
Process 88073 launched:
'/opt/gcc/gcc11w/libexec/gcc/x86_64-apple-darwin19.5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96345
Bug ID: 96345
Summary: __cxa demangle fails to demangle a very long string
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96345
--- Comment #1 from V ---
Created attachment 48936
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48936&action=edit
failing example
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96345
--- Comment #2 from V ---
Created attachment 48937
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48937&action=edit
function with name that __cxa_demangle rejects
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84079
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:07bd5544a3ab3a04d1652dbcb5a09d7271a9706a
commit r11-2370-g07bd5544a3ab3a04d1652dbcb5a09d7271a9706a
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 84079, which changed state.
Bug 84079 Summary: missing -Warray-bounds taking the address of a
multidimensional array element
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84079
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84079
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96346
Bug ID: 96346
Summary: missing warning accessing an element of a non-trailing
zero length array
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96337
--- Comment #2 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
Looks like even kernel performance is affected:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200507224530.2993316-1-ja...@zx2c4.com/
That was surely not a change for the better.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96345
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Does c++filt demangle it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96343
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Thanks for the report.
Yes, not sure we can reproduce it like this. We might need something
smaller, more self-contained.
In the meantime... Can you check if this still happens with trunk,
or with GC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96347
Bug ID: 96347
Summary: note: non-delegitimized UNSPEC UNSPEC_TP (19) found in
variable location
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96347
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_86-linux-gnu
Build|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96156
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
The fix for this is blocked by pr96347.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96348
Bug ID: 96348
Summary: The same "C" program runtime is 50 times longer on
Win10 than on Linux.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96348
Brian Oh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||brianoh at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96348
--- Comment #2 from Brian Oh ---
Created attachment 48940
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48940&action=edit
the preprocessed file (zipped)
The preprocessed file (zipped) is attached.
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
