https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99657
Bug ID: 99657
Summary: ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2769 (error:
unrecognizable insn)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #26 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 50431
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50431&action=edit
Single file reproducer, 7505 lines, no input files any more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99648
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99649
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
--- Comment #3 from Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99658
Bug ID: 99658
Summary: __divmoddi4 calls are generated on i686
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99656
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Summary|ICE in linear_loa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99657
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99658
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #27 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 50432
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50432&action=edit
down to 6800 lines
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99658
--- Comment #2 from Khem Raj ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Yes. GCC rightfully expects all libgcc functions to be available. Arguably
> one divmod call is better than two calls to mod and div.
thanks makes sense.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99651
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/566956.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99624
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86656
Bug 86656 depends on bug 99624, which changed state.
Bug 99624 Summary: Address sanitizer detects heap-buffer-overflow in namet.adb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99624
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99656
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tnfchris at gcc dot
gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99659
Bug ID: 99659
Summary: internal compiler error: tree check: expected tree
that contains 'decl common' structure, have
'error_mark' in synthesize_implicit_template_parm, at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99660
Bug ID: 99660
Summary: Cross compiler cannot be built: i686-wrs-vxworksae
likely since
g:9a835ba4c00bc5f183a26a5335f14a2a428a2b78
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99661
Bug ID: 99661
Summary: Cross compiler cannot be built: powerpc-darwin8
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99660
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Similarly for powerpc-wrs-vxworksae:
g++ -fno-PIE -c -DSTANDARD_STARTFILE_PREFIX=\"../../../\"
-DSTANDARD_EXEC_PREFIX=\"/usr/local/lib64/gcc/\"
-DSTANDARD_LIBEXEC_PREFIX=\"/usr/local/lib/gcc/\"
-DDEFAULT_TA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99662
Bug ID: 99662
Summary: GNAT compiled with the address sanitizer fails at
build time
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99660
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
And powerpc-wrs-vxworksmils.
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: doko at debian dot org
Target Milestone: ---
trunk 20210319 ftbfs on s390x-linux-gnu, with
../../../src/libgcc/../libdecnumber/decNumber.c: In function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #28 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #27)
> Created attachment 50432 [details]
> reproducer, down to 6800 lines
Hi Juergen,
Stop! Yesterday's final is just fine. The problem is connected with the logic
se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99641
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b980edba506442c846cc779243ceeffd13065740
commit r11-7729-gb980edba506442c846cc779243ceeffd13065740
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99664
Bug ID: 99664
Summary: Overriding virtual function with different return type
(and not covariant) is allowed to compiled, when it
shouldn’t be
Product: gcc
Versio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99641
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:376f564b870a0afa64403a9aaf9f0ff1fc7153cf
commit r10-9458-g376f564b870a0afa64403a9aaf9f0ff1fc7153cf
Author: Eric Botcazou
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99641
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99661
--- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe ---
hmm.. thanks for the report.
I built a cross to powerpc-darwin9 yesterday
(and a native i686-darwin8)
will give this a go later.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99661
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
what was the host/build system in this case?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99663
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose ---
also seen with --with-arch=z196
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99664
--- Comment #1 from Ricardo Silva ---
>From here https://stackoverflow.com/q/66698168/6865932
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99661
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #2)
> what was the host/build system in this case?
NM... I just didn't read it.
How do you get the SDK and binutils in this case?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #29 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #28)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #27)
> > Created attachment 50432 [details]
> > reproducer, down to 6800 lines
>
> Hi Juergen,
>
> Stop! Yesterday's fin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99663
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Can you please attach preprocessed source for it, so that it can be bisected
easily?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99661
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
>
> How do you get the SDK and binutils in this case?
>
I don't do that. My ambition is to build host compilers, so I run make
all-host.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99658
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99661
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> >
> > How do you get the SDK and binutils in this case?
> >
>
> I don't do that. My ambition is to build host compilers, so I run make
> all-host.
so you're just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99663
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99660
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99664
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-19
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99661
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99665
Bug ID: 99665
Summary: GCC can generate FPU instructions not supported by the
.fpu directive it emits
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99663
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99656
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99663
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose ---
trying to reproduce, it ICEs at a different place...
$ cat decNumber.i
typedef struct {
int exponent;
unsigned short lsu[];
} decNumber;
char __decd2utable[] = {};
decNumber *decExpOp_rhs;
void decExpOp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99663
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Klose ---
Created attachment 50433
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50433&action=edit
preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99554
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99666
Bug ID: 99666
Summary: [OpenMP][5.0] Support 'affinity' clause in 'omp task'
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99666
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yeah, but not really sure if we want to do anything with it other than accept
it / verify the restrictions.
The tasking is already overly complicated and the right way is to make it more
scalable (have per th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99554
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The ICE is because of invalid RTL emitted, SET with NULL SET_SRC.
This is emitted by aarch64_add_offset, which is called on
DImode pseudo dest, const0_rtx src and offset {252,252}.
So, factor 252, constant 0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99554
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99540
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
*** Bug 99554 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99663
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Klose ---
and the reduction for the original ICE:
typedef struct {
int exponent;
unsigned short lsu[];
} decNumber;
decNumber decDivideOp_lhs;
short decDivideOp_varbuff;
void decDivideOp(decNumber *rhs) {
short
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99540
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99663
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99540
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ideally flag_trapv should be reimplemented on top of __builtin_*_overflow, and
do that lowering early rather than at expansion, but that is too late for GCC
11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97926
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org|segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99663
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97926
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It helps if you test the compiler you just built, not something old. Sigh.
Patch is testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99663
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99581
--- Comment #13 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Sorry for not responding until now, but would it work to make
the "o" constraint check memory_address_addr_space_p too,
like the other memory constraints do? IMO it's wrong for "o"
to accept
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99540
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As a fix maybe even better
--- gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c.jj 2021-03-19 10:14:18.302936161 +0100
+++ gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c2021-03-19 13:33:35.367973092 +0100
@@ -4639,7 +4639,7 @@ aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99540
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99540
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99663
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Indeed, r11-7725-ga4670f58ebff805e35268542aac35f9791980954 (please, at least
prefix git hashes with g: so that one gets link).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99593
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:009528d61c796608affd1eaa18ae31a3679eb46d
commit r11-7733-g009528d61c796608affd1eaa18ae31a3679eb46d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99593
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99593
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Christophe, sorry for forgetting to add Co-authored-by, will fix it up in the
ChangeLog tomorrow by hand.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99593
--- Comment #18 from Christophe Lyon ---
Not a big deal if you forget, that's a detail :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99581
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Well, V=m-o (not the same thing, these are sets) -- but, it is clear that "o"
should be a subset of "m":
(define_memory_constraint "TARGET_MEM_CONSTRAINT"
"Matches any valid memory."
(define_memory_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99614
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:21d09cb732dac5d980ac628eb3aca75c821028a2
commit r11-7734-g21d09cb732dac5d980ac628eb3aca75c821028a2
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99614
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 99614, which changed state.
Bug 99614 Summary: diagnostic-manager.cc:85: possible missing copy constructor ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99614
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99667
Bug ID: 99667
Summary: RFE: complain about uninitialized member variables in
constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98642
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99668
Bug ID: 99668
Summary: Converting argument _Complex double to double vector
causes STLF stall
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99652
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5e2eabe1eed1e53d39923517122d3c7de2013ad4
commit r11-7735-g5e2eabe1eed1e53d39923517122d3c7de2013ad4
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Thu Mar 18 11:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99652
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98247
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |analyzer
Summary|gcc analyzer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99669
Bug ID: 99669
Summary: RFE: detect division by zero in analyzer
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: analyzer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99260
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
In reply to David Malcolm from comment #0)
> The analyzer currently has no knowledge of the behavior of "realloc"
> (leading e.g. to bug 99193).
>
> For example, it currently fails to issue a warning for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99260
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Also, bug 81452 tracks warning on realloc(p, 0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99670
Bug ID: 99670
Summary: IPA CP and SRA pass order issue?
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
Ass
ments/20210319/c979c698/attachment-0001.bin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99656
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c3a2bc6daaa2d278cb5f323e2df4b8c2af4198ac
commit r11-7736-gc3a2bc6daaa2d278cb5f323e2df4b8c2af4198ac
Author: Tamar Christina
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99656
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99659
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99671
Bug ID: 99671
Summary: RFE: analyzer could complain about ptr derefs that
occur before the ptr is checked
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99660
Olivier Hainque changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99672
Bug ID: 99672
Summary: std::source_location yield different column numbers
between free function and template functions
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99660
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Olivier Hainque :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eadb118e36f9295df0d5787c8a31424d05fde592
commit r11-7738-geadb118e36f9295df0d5787c8a31424d05fde592
Author: Olivier Hainque
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99660
Olivier Hainque changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target|i686-wrs-vxwo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99672
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99661
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:02f305440f29c68b7368c9af9ae689cce6d26d6d
commit r11-7739-g02f305440f29c68b7368c9af9ae689cce6d26d6d
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99661
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99672
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 50434
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50434&action=edit
gcc11-pr99672.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99673
Bug ID: 99673
Summary: [11 Regression] bogus -Wstringop-overread warning with
address sanitizer
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99663
--- Comment #9 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Thank you for reporting this. I've reproduced this crash. ETA of the patch is
Monday at worst.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99456
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:82bb66730bc42b8694fdebef607ea6e49e8496bf
commit r11-7740-g82bb66730bc42b8694fdebef607ea6e49e8496bf
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99456
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99205
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d6faf78a88151eee32a79cdfb7b38399318724fa
commit r10-9460-gd6faf78a88151eee32a79cdfb7b38399318724fa
Author: Harald Anlauf
D
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
